iK»>T^**^'-%w 


^J  ^[  ^'<^^ 

A 

\A              — 

^^^^■l^glOBl 

'■■^^  c^  t^ . 


THE    WORDS 


THE   NEW   TESTAMENT. 


EDINBURGH  :    PRINTED  BY  MUIR  AND  PATERSON 
FOR 

T.  AND  T.  CLARK. 


LONDON, 
DUBLIN, 
NEW  YORK, 


HAMILTON,  ADAMS,  AND  CO. 

JOHN  ROBERTSON  AND  CO. 

SCRIBNER,  WELFORD,  AND  ARMSTRONG. 


THE    WORDS 


THE    NEW    TESTAMENT, 


AS  ALTERED  BY  TItANSMISSIOJV  AND  ASCERTAINED 
BY  MODERN  CRITICISM. 


FOR    POPULAR    USE, 


7 


EEV.    WILLIAM    MILLIGAN,    D.D, 

PROFESSOR   OF   DIVIUITT   AND   BIBLICAL    CRITICISM,    ABERDEEN; 


AND 

EEV.   ALEX.   EOBEETS,   D.D. 

PROFESSOR   OF   HUMANITY,    ST.    ANDREWS. 


EDi:^rBUEGH: 

T.    AND   T.    CLAEK,    38    GEOEGE    STEEET. 

1873. 


PREFACE. 


The  following  pages  are  meant  to  supply  what  the 
writers  believe  to  be  a  strongly  felt  want.  While  many 
useful  manuals  exist,  fitted  to  convey  to  general  readers 
an  acquaintance  with  the  outlines  of  such  sciences  as 
Astronomy,  Geology,  or  Botany,  scarcely  anything  of 
the  kind  has  been  attempted  in  connexion  with  the 
science  of  Biblical  Criticism.  Not  a  few  valuable 
treatises  have  indeed  been  issued  on  the  subject ;  but 
these  are  of  by  far  too  technical  a  character  to  meet  the 
wants  of  the  public  at  large.  They  appeal  only  to  pro- 
fessed scholars  or  to  those  who  are  supposed  to  have 
already  a  considerable  amount  of  information.  The 
consequence  is  that  multitudes  of  highly  intelligent 
men  who  are  well  versed  in  the  leading  principles  and 
results  of  other  sciences,  know  very  little  of  the  objects, 
methods,  or  achievements  of  sacred  criticism.  It  is  to 
meet  the  wants  of  such  that  the  present  volume  has 


vi  Preface. 

been  prepared;  and  the  writers  trust  that  what  they 
have  been  enabled  to  state  will  be  felt  to  be  both  in- 
teresting and  important,  without  the  use  of  language 
unsuited  to  the  general  reader. 

The  prospect  which  the  British  public  have  of  soon 
obtaining  a  revised  version  of  the  Sacred  Scriptures  is 
naturally  attracting  more  than  ordinary  attention  to  the 
topics  handled  in  this  work.  Many  of  the  changes  of 
the  Authorized  Version  made  in  that  revision  must  be 
founded  on  previous  changes  of  the  Greek  text.  It 
seems  desirable  that  the  great  body  of  educated  persons 
who  are  watching  with  so  lively  an  interest  the  pro- 
ceedings of  the  New  Testament  Eevision  Company, 
now  sitting  at  Westminster,  but  who  have  neither 
the  necessary  time  nor  acquirements  for  entering 
deeply  into  the  studies  of  the  Biblical  critic,  should 
yet  be  able  to  form  to  themselves  an  intelligent  idea  of 
the  need  of  a  revision  of  the  text,  of  the  principles  on 
which  it  should  be  conducted,  and  of  the  results  that 
may  be  expected  from  it.  They  will  thus  be  in  a  better 
position  than  they  can  be  at  present  for  judging  of  the 
merits  of  the  revision  when  it  appears. 

It  is  not  indeed  to  be  supposed  that  a  correct  impres- 
sion of  what  the  revised  translation  will  contain  can  be 
gathered  from  anything  here  said.     Even  the  readings 


Preface.  vii 

for  whicli  the  writers  have  expressed  a  preference  will 
doubtless  differ  in  numerous  instances  from  those 
adopted  by  the  Eevision  Company;  while  that  Com- 
pany must  certainly  introduce  into  the  text  many 
more  changes  than  those  spoken  of  by  them.  The 
writers  of  this  book  must  be  understood  to  deal  only 
with  the  principles  of  textual  criticism  that  appear  to 
themselves  to  be  correct ;  and  for  the  opinions  indicated 
they  alone  are  responsible. 

It  may  be  proper  to  add  that  the  first  part  of  this 
work  has  been  written  by  Professor  Eoberts,  the  second 
by  Professor  Milligan.  The  third  part  is  a  joint  pro- 
duction ;  Professor  Milligan  treating  the  texts  referred 
to  in  the  Gospels  and  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  Professor 
Eoberts  those  in  the  other  books  of  the  New  Testament. 

\st  May  1873. 


CONTENTS. 


PAET  riEST. 

THE   FACTS   OF   THE   CASE. 

CHAP.  PAGE 

I.  Causes  of  Various  Readings  in  the  New  Testament,          .  3 

II.  Nature  and  Amount  of  the  Yarious  Readings,          .         .  18 

III.  Existing  Manuscripts  of  the  New  Testament,           .         .  26 

IV.  Ancient  Versions  of  the  New  Testament,         ...  47 
V.  Quotations  from  the  Books  of  the  New  Testament  by- 
Ancient  "Writers, 60 

VI.  Sketch  of  the  History  of  Modern  Biblical  Criticism,         .  67 


PAET  SECOKD. 

MODE   OF   DEALING  WITH   THE   FACTS. 

I.  Introductory, 83 

II.  First  Step  in  Classification,     ...         ...  89 

III.  Second  Step  in  Classification,          ...         .        .  95 

IV.  Third  Step  in  Classification.— Part  I.,     ....  101 
V.  Third  Step  in  Classification.— Part  II 109 


X  Contents. 

CHAP. 

VI.  General  Eesult  of  Classification, 
VII.  The  Principle  of  Grouping,      . 
VIII.  Determination  of  the  Text. — Part  L, 
IX.  Determination  of  the  Text. — Part  11. 
X.  General  Summary, 


116 
121 
129 
138 

148 


PAKT  THIED. 

RESULTS. 

I.  Effect  produced  by  Textual  Criticism  upon  important 

Texts  of  the  New  Testament, 155 

IT.  Effect  produced  by  Textual  Criticism  upon  the  Text  of 

the  New  Testament  in  its  Successive  Books,         .         .       173 


PART  FIEST. 

THE  FACTS  OF  THE   CASE, 


PART  FIRST. 

THE  FACTS  OF  THE  CASE. 


CHAPTEE   I. 

CAUSES  OF  VARIOUS  READINGS  IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

[HE   autographs   of   the   sacred   writers   have 
long  since  disappeared  or  perished. 

This  being  so,  there  is,  of  necessity,  scope 
for  critical  researches  in  connection  with  the 
text  of  the  New  Testament.  Unless  God  had  continued 
from  age  to  age  to  exercise  a  miraculous  care  over  the 
original  text — a  thing  totally  out  of  harmony  with  the 
usual  course  of  His  Providence — nothing  could  be  more 
certain  than  that  slight  alterations  and  errors  would 
creep  into  it  with  the  lapse  of  time.  Even  at  the 
present  day  it  is  a  matter  of  extreme  difficulty  to  get 
a  work  printed  with  absolute  accuracy.  Probably,  in 
spite  of  all  the  care  which  has  been  taken,  there  never 
yet  was  an  edition  of  the  Scriptures  published  in  any 
language  which  did  not  contain  some  errors.  The 
curious  misprints  which  have  occurred  in  some  of  the 
most  carefully  watched  editions  are  well  known  to  all 


4    Causes  of  Various  Readings  in  the  New  Testament. 

that  have  devoted  any  attention  to  this  subject,  and 
serve  to  prove  how  difficult,  if  not  impossible,  it  is  to 
secure  unblemished  correctness  in  passing  the  Scriptures 
through  the  press. 

Xow,  if  this  is  the  case  even  in  the  days  of  printing, 
much  more  must  the  liability  to  error  have  existed 
when  copies  of  the  New  Testament  could  be  multiplied 
only  by  transcription.  Every  one  who  has  much  copy- 
ing work  to  do  feels  how  very  difficult  it  is,  for  any 
considerable  time,  to  preserve  perfect  accuracy.  The 
mind  can  scarcely  be  drilled  into  fulfilling  that  merely 
mechanical  process  which  is  all  that,  in  such  circum- 
stances, it  is  called  to  accomplish.  It  v:ill  exercise 
itself  about  the  subject  before  it;  and  thus,  instead  of 
rigidly  copying  the  document  under  transcription,  it  is 
apt,  every  now  and  then,  to  allow  its  own  thoughts  or 
fancies  to  find  a  place  upon  the  page.  Suppose,  for 
instance,  that  one  is  transcribing  a  sentence  which  ends 
with  the  words  "  twenty  centuries."  The  first  part  of 
the  sentence  is  perhaps  copied  with  literal  accuracy; 
but,  while  the  fact  stated  at  the  close  of  the  period  is 
retained  in  the  memory,  a  change  in  the  mode  of 
expressing  it  has  been  unconsciously  effected  in  the 
mind  of  the  transcriber,  so  that,  instead  of  writing 
"twenty  centuries,"  he  sets  down  "two  thousand  years." 
In  this  way  the  very  intelligence  of  a  copyist  will 
sometimes  betray  him  into  mistakes.  He  may  substi- 
tute one  synonymous  word  for  another,  or  exchange  a 
name  which  occurs  in  the  document  before  him  for 
another  name  by  which  the  individual  referred  to  is 


Causes  of  Various  Readings  in  the  New  Testament,    5 

equally  well  known  in  history.  Thus,  instead  of 
"king "he  may  write  "sovereign"  or  "monarch;"  for 
"Hildebrand"  he  may  substitute  "  Gregory  VIL*;"  in  place 
of  "Lord  Bacon"  he  may  be  led  to  say  "Lord  Verulam," 
and  so  on, — the  danger  of  falling  into  such  mistakes 
being  all  the  greater  the  farther  a  transcriber  rises 
above  the  character  of  a  mere  copying-machine  and 
is  himself  possessed  of  knowledge  and  intelligence. 

This  general  remark  will,  of  itself,  account  for  not  a 
few  of  those  variations  which  are  found  in  Manuscripts 
of  the  New  Testament.  Again  and  again  has  a  word  or 
phrase  been  slipped  in  by  the  transcriber  which  had 
no  existence  in  his  copy,  but  which  was  due  to  the 
working  of  his  own  mind  on  the  subject  before  him. 
On  this  ground  we  easily  explain,  for  example,  the 
frequent  introduction  of  our  Lord's  name  into  the  text 
where  a  simple  pronoun  existed  in  the  original  copy, 
or  where  the  nominative  was  left  to  be  supplied  from 
the  context.  Thus,  at  Mark  viii.  1,  John  vi.  14,  and 
in  a  vast  number  of  other  passages,  we  find  Jesus  where 
He  is  the  correct  reading.  On  the  same  ground  we 
account  for  those  differences  in  the  order  of  words 
which  are  often  to  be  found  in  the  manuscripts.  One 
will  read  "  Jesus  Christ,"  and  another  "  Christ  Jesus," 
just  as  the  names  happened  to  present  themselves  to 
the  minds  of  transcribers.  And  there  are  other  readings 
of  considerably  greater  interest  which  are  probably  to 
be  traced  to  the  same  cause.  AVe  may  refer  to  Matt, 
xxv.  6  for  an  example.  The  true  reading  there  is, 
"Behold  the  bridegroom;"  the  reading  which  has  crept 


6    Causes  of  Various  Readings  in  the  New  Testament. 

into  the  text  is,  "Behold  the  bridegroom  cometh;"  and 
we  may,  without  much  risk  of  mistake,  ascribe  this 
addition  simply  to  the  working  of  the  mind  of  a  copyist 
on  the  passage  before  him.  So,  at  Luke  i.  29,  the  in- 
sertion of  "when  she  saw  him  "  will  be  naturally  enough 
accounted  for  on  the  same  ground ;  while  we  feel  that 
it  would  be  scarcely  possible  to  transcribe  Eorn.  viii.  26 
without  interpolating  the  words  "for  us,"  which  are 
nevertheless  destitute  of  any  adequate  authority.  These 
illustrations  may  suffice  to  show  how  various  readings 
would,  in  many  cases,  arise,  not  from  any  intention  on 
the  part  of  transcribers,  but  simply  from  the  exercise 
of  their  own  minds  on  the  subject  which  happened  for 
the  time  to  engage  their  consideration. 

But,  in  multitudes  of  other  cases,  the  various  readings 
must  be  ascribed  to  intention  on  the  part  of  transcribers. 
Several  motives  may  be  detected  as  having  influenced 
them  in  the  alterations  which  they  introduced  into  the 
text  of  the  New  Testament. 

For  one  thing,  many  passages  which  presented  difficult 
constructions  have  been  changed  to  the  more  usual 
forms.  In  such  cases,  the  copyist  has  either  naturally 
glided  into  the  style  of  expression  with  which  he  was 
familiar,  or  has  supposed  that  his  predecessor  in  the 
work  of  transcription  had  made  a  mistake  which  it  was 
his  duty  to  correct.  This  has  been  a  very  fertile  source 
of  various  readings ;  and,  in  dealing  with  cases  of  the 
kind  referred  to.  Biblical  critics  have  laid  down  the  rule 
that  an  obscure  expression,  or  a  harsh  and  ungrammati- 


Causes  of  Various  Readings  in  the  New  Testament.    7 

cal  construction,  is  generally  to  be  chosen  as  probably 
the  correct  reading,  rather  than  another  which  is  clear, 
or  familiar  and  correct.     It  may  seem  strange  at  first 
that  such  a  principle  should  be  adopted — that  a  reading 
which  it  is  almost  impossible  to  construe  or  interpret 
should  be  preferred  to  one  which  presents  no  difiiculty. 
But  the  reason  is  obvious.    A  transcriber  was  much  more 
likely  to  supplant  an  obscure  or  unintelligible  expres- 
sion by  one  that  was  usual  and  easy  than  to  follow  the 
opposite  course.     He  was  far  more  strongly  tempted  to 
consider  the  rugged  idiom  or  the  unaccustomed  phrase 
before  him  an  error  which  had  crept  into  the  manuscript 
from  which  he  copied,  than  to  change  what  was  common 
and  intelligible  into  what  was  unusual  and  incompre- 
hensible.    Of  course  occasions  might  occur  on  which, 
from  carelessness  or  oversight,  a  transcriber  would  render 
a  sentence  obscure  or  ungrammatical  which  was  clear 
and  correct  in  his  exemplar ;  but  it  is  manifest  that,  so 
far  as  intentional  alteration  was  concerned,  the  tempta- 
tion all  lay  in  the  opposite  direction. 

A  familiar  illustration  of  the  manner  in  which  various 
readings  would  originate,  as  just  indicated,  may  be  found 
in  a  reference  to  the  text  of  Shakespeare.  Again  and 
again  have  words  or  phrases  which  were  not  understood 
by  editors  been  changed  into  forms  with  which  they  were 
familiar,  and  which  they  regarded  as  yielding  a  satis- 
factory sense.  The  text  of  our  great  dramatist  has  thus 
been  loaded  with  numerous  expressions  which  we  are 
perfectly  certain  he  never  wrote.  It  is  only  through 
much  labour,  and   by   means   of  a  thorough  study  of 


8    Causes  of  Various  Readings  in  the  New  Testament. 

the  contemporary  Elizabethan  literature,  that  Shakes- 
pearian critics  are  gradually  succeeding  in  extruding 
those  erroneous  readings  which  have,  for  the  sake  of 
apparently  greater  clearness,  been  foisted  into  the  text 
of  their  author,  and  in  restoring,  with  tolerable  certainty, 
the  genuine  text.  We  can  easily  conceive  that,  while 
this  process  of  rectification  is  pursued,  it  should  some- 
times happen,  in  regard  to  the  works  of  Shakespeare,  as 
in  the  case  of  the  New  Testament,  that  readings  have  to 
be  sacrificed  with  which  one  is  loath  to  part.  Suppose, 
for  instance,  our  highest  critical  authorities  should  com- 
bine against  Theobald's  famous  emendation  in  Scene  3, 
Act  II.  of  King  Henry  V.  They  might  insist  that 
evidence  is  decidedly  in  favour  of  the  old  folio  reading 
of  the  passage.  In  that  case,  we  could  not  resign  with- 
out regret  what  has  been  deemed  such  an  exquisite 
touch  of  nature,  when  we  are  told  of  the  dying  Falstaff 
that  "  he  babbled  of  green  fields."  Yet,  if  it  became  the 
settled  judgment  of  critics  that  the  phrase  referred  to  is 
simply  a  happy  guess,  and  was  never  written  by  Shakes- 
peare, every  reasonable  man  would  give  it  up,  however 
prosaic  or  unintelligible  might  be  the  words  substituted 
in  its  place.  So  it  may  be  matter  of  regret  to  have  to 
accept  at  1  Pet.  iii.  8  the  somewhat  commonplace 
exhortation  "Be  humble"  for  the  beautiful  precept 
"  Be  courteous,"  which  stands  in  our  present  Authorized 
Version.  But  still,  if  authority  so  determine,  we  must 
not  hesitate.  There  may  often  be  an  artificial  beauty 
about  error,  but  there  is  always  an  inestimable  precious- 
ness  in  truth. 


Causes  of  Varioits  Readings  in  the  New  Testament.    9 

The  following  examples  may  be  given  of  the  way  in 
which  various  readings  have  arisen  in  the  text  of  the 
New  Testament,  from  a  desire  on  the  part  of  the  copyists 
to  remove  or  lessen  difficulties.  At  Matt.  xvi.  11  the 
true  reading  is,  "  How  is  it  that  ye  do  not  understand 
that  I  spake  not  to  you  concerning  bread  ?  But  beware 
of  the  leaven  of  the  Pharisees  and  Sadducees."  The 
imperative  in  the  second  clause  of  this  verse  being  either 
not  liked  or  not  understood,  the  passage  has,  in  defiance 
of  all  authority,  been  made  to  run  as  follows — "  How  is 
it  that  ye  do  not  understand  that  I  spake  it  not  to  you 
concerning  bread,  that  ye  should  beware  of  the  leaven  of 
the  Pharisees  and  of  the  Sadducees  ?"  At  Mark  vii.  31 
the  true  reading  is,  "  And  again,  going  from  the  borders 
of  Tyre,  He  came  through  Sidon  unto  the  Sea  of  Galilee, 
through  the  midst  of  the  borders  of  Decapolis."  But,  in 
order  to  escape  the  fancied  difficulty  involved  in  the 
long  circuit  which  these  words  describe  as  having  been 
made  by  Christ,  the  verse  has  been  altered  to  read  as 
follows : — "  And  again,  departing  from  the  coasts  of  Tyre 
and  Sidon,  He  came  unto  the  Sea  of  Galilee,  through  the 
midst  of  the  coasts  of  Decapolis."  At  Luke  xiv.  5  the 
true  reading  in  all  probability  is,  "  And  He  said  unto 
them.  Which  of  you  shall  have  a  son  or  an  ox  fallen 
into  a  well,  and  will  not  straightway  draw  him  out  on 
the  sabbath  day  ?"  Here,  however,  the  word  "son"  was 
deemed  unsuitable,  as  not  being  consistent  with  the 
supposed  argument  from  the  less  to  the  greater,  and  was 
therefore  changed  into  "  ass  "  (which  is  found  at  chap, 
xiii.  15),  so  that  the  verse  runs  thus — "Which  of  you 


10  Causes  of  Varioiis  Headings  in  the  New  Testament. 

shall  have  an  ass  or  an  ox  fallen  into  a  pit,  and  will  not 
straightway  pull  him  out  on  the  sabbath  day  ?" 

Under  the  same  head  may  properly  be  ranked  some 
of  those  additions  which  have  been  made  to  the  true  text 
of  the  New  Testament.  An  example  occurs  at  Eom. 
viii.  1.  The  genuine  reading  in  that  passage  is  simply, 
"  There  is  therefore  now  no  condemnation  to  them 
which  are  in  Christ  Jesus."  The  longer  this  statement 
is  considered  the  more  it  will  be  felt  an  admirably  satis- 
factory conclusion  to  the  previous  reasoning  of  the 
Apostle.  But  many  copyists  seem  to  have  been  dissatis- 
fied with  its  brevity  and  simplicity.  They  desiderated 
the  introduction  of  the  personal  and  practical  element, 
and  therefore  (although  the  argument  of  the  Apostle  is 
thus  anticipated  and  obscured)  inserted  from  verse  4  the 
words,  "who  walk  not  after  the  iiesh,  but  after  the 
spirit." 

To  the  same  desire  on  the  part  of  transcribers  to 
correct  and  improve  the  text  before  them  are  unquestion- 
ably to  be  ascribed  many  of  those  various  readings  which 
occur  in  the  Book  of  Eevelation.  As  is  well  known  to 
all  acquainted  with  the  original,  that  portion  of  the  New 
Testament  is  remarkable  for  the  number  of  ungram- 
matical  expressions  which  it  contains.  There  is  no 
great  difficulty  in  suggesting  satisfactory  reasons,  his- 
torical and  psychological,  why  this  should  be  the  case. 
But  it  is  evident  what  a  temptation  to  correct  was  thus 
presented  to  transcribers.  The  very  respect  and  affection 
which  may  be  entertained  for  a  writer  will  lead  to  the 
wish  that  as  few  blemishes  as  possible  should  appear  in 


Causes  of  Various  Readings  in  the  New  Testament.  11 

his  works.  These  blemishes  will  be  made  the  subject 
of  earnest  regret,  and  will,  if  opportunity  is  offered,  be 
carefully  removed.  Who  can  doubt,  for  instance,  the 
pain  which  Bishop  Hurd  felt  in  pointing  out  obscurities 
and  inelei^ancies  in  the  text  of  his  favourite  Addison  ? 
Never  did  editor  more  love  or  esteem  his  author  than 
did  the  worthy  bishop.  He  dilates  with  his  whole 
heart,  and  most  justly,  on  the  "purity  and  grace  of 
expression  "  displayed  by  Addison.  Yet  every  now  and 
then  a  word  or  a  whole  sentence  occurs  which  offends 
the  taste  of  the  bishop,  and  which  he  wishes  had  been 
different  from  what  it  is.  Now,  this  same  feeling  existed 
in  the  minds  of  transcribers  towards  the  sacred  writers, 
and  led  them  in  many  cases  to  replace  an  inaccurate 
form  of  expression  by  another  which  was  correct.  Hence 
alterations  for  the  sake  of  grammar  have  been  introduced 
into  the  Greek  text  at  Eev.  ii.  20,  iv.  1,  &c. ;  but  such 
changes  are  without  effect  upon  the  English  Version. 

There  must  also  be  noticed  under  this  head  the 
numerous  cases  in  which  parallel  passages  have  been 
made  verbally  to  correspond  with  one  another.  These 
cases  are,  of  course,  most  frequent  in  the  Gospels.  Thus 
the  true  reading  both  at  Matt.  ix.  13  and  Mark  ii.  17 
is,  "  I  came  not  to  call  the  righteous,  but  sinners."  Both 
passages,  however,  have  been  conformed  to  the  text  of 
Luke  V.  32,  so  that  in  all  three  Gospels  we  read,  "I 
came  not  to  call  the  righteous,  but  sinners  to  repentance." 
Such  cases  of  harmonizing,  though  far  more  common, 
as  was'to  have  been  expected,  in  the  Gospels,  may  also 
be  found  in  the  Epistles.     Thus  1  Tim.  i.  17  has  been 


12  Causes  of  Various  Readings  in  the  Neio  Testament. 

made  to  conform  to  Eom.  xvi.  27  by  the  insertion  of  the 
word  "  wise."  As  the  epithet  "  only  "  occurs  before  God 
in  both  passages,  the  two  doxologies  have  been  harmon- 
ized by  the  interpolation  of  the  missing  "  wise  "  in  the 
passage  in  Timothy,  which  ought  to  be  read,  "  Unto  the 
King  eternal  [or,  "  of  the  ages  "],  the  incorruptible,  the 
invisible,  the  only  God,  be  honour  and  glory  for  ever  and 
ever.  Amen."  The  reason  of  such  changes  in  the  text 
is  happily  so  evident  that  corruptions  of  the  kind  referred 
to  cause  little  trouble  to  Biblical  critics. 

\ 

There  is  still  another  cause  of  various  readings 
which  falls  under  the  head  of  intention  on  the  part  of 
transcribers;  but  it  is  of  so  grave  a  character  as  to 
demand  special  and  separate  consideration.  We  refer 
to  the  changes  which,  it  is  supposed,  have  in  some 
cases  been  made  on  the  text  from  doctrinal  views  or 
predilections. 

We  rejoice  to  believe  that  there  is  no  necessity  for 
ascribing  many  of  the  various  readings  in  the  New 
Testament  to  this  cause.  The  ancient  copyists  seem 
to  have  done  their  work  with  the  utmost  sincerity. 
Perhaps  every  one  of  the  readings  which  have  some- 
times been  attributed  to  doctrinal  bias  admits  of  being 
explained  on  grounds  which  imply  no  suspicion  of  bad 
faith  on  the  part  of  the  transcribers.  Still,  there  are 
certain  passages  in  which  the  variation  which  exists 
may  possibly  have  been  due  to  the  dogmatic  opinions 
held  by  various  transcribers,  and  to  some  of  the  chief 
of  these  we  shall  now  briefly  direct  attention. 


Causes  of  Various  Eeadings  in  the  JVeiv  Testament.  13 

It  need  not  be  said  how  often  a  single  word  carries 
in  its  bosom  an  important  doctrine ;  and,  bearing  this 
in  mind,  we  shall  easily  understand  how  strong,  accord- 
ing to  the  bias  of  the  copyist,  may  have  been  the 
temptation  to  tamper  with  the  text.  Thus,  the  whole 
controversy  between  the  Church  Catholic  and  the 
Arians  or  the  Socinians  may  be  said  to  be  involved  in 
the  reading  which  is  to  be  adopted  at  Acts  xx.  28.  If 
we  are  to  read  that  verse  as  it  stands  in  our  Authorized 
English  Version,  "  Feed  the  Church  of  God  which  He 
hath  purchased  with  His  own  blood,"  there  can  no 
longer  be  the  slightest  doubt  as  to  the  supreme  divinity 
of  our  Eedeemer.  But  then  ancient  authority  is  greatly 
divided  on  the  point  as  to  whether  or  not  God  is  here 
the  correct  expression;  and  many  modern  critics  prefer 
to  read  the  verse  thus — "Teed  the  Church  of  the  Lord 
which  He  hath  purchased  with  His  own  blood;"  a 
statement  which  cannot  be  held  decisive,  one  way  or 
another,  of  the  controversy  in  question.^ 

The  same  remarks  apply  to  the  alternative  readings 
found  at  John  i.  18.  Some  copies  read  that  verse  as  in 
our  common  Version — "  No  man  hath  seen  God  at  any 
time:  the  only  begotten  Son,  which  is  in  the  bosom  of 
the  Father,  He  hath  declared  Him."  But  many  others 
have  the  verse  as  follows — '*No  man  hath  seen  God  at 
any  time  :  the  only  begotten  God,  which  is  in  the  bosom 
of  the  Father,  He  hath  declared  Him."     The  important 

1  This  passage  and  those  that  follow  are  referred  to  at  present 
simply  for  the  sake  of  illustration  ;  they  will  be  found  discussed 
afterwards  in  Parts  Second  and  Third. 


14  Causes  of  Various  Readings  in  the  New  Testament. 

doctrinal  inference  to  be  derived  from  the  latter  reading 
is  too  obvious  to  require  remark. 

Again,  it  is  evident  liow  the  famous  passage,  around 
which  such  controversy  has  raged,  1  John  v.  7,  8  ("  in 
heaven,  the  Fatlier,  the  Word,  and  the  Holy  Ghost;  and 
these  three  are  one.  And  there  are  three  that  bear 
witness  in  earth"),  may  have  been  introduced  into  the 
text  without  authority,  in  order  to  give  a  fancied 
support  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  On  the  other 
hand,  it  has  been  urged  that  the  Arians  may  have 
designedly  omitted  the  passage,  from  their  dislike  to  the 
truth  which  it  seems  so  manifestly  to  set  forth. 

As  a  specimen  of  the  less  celebrated  passages  in 
which  doctrinal  considerations  are  thought  to  have 
affected  readings,  we  may  refer  to  Heb.  i.  3.  The 
latter  part  of  that  verse  is  read  by  modern  critics  as 
follows — "When  He  had  made  a  purification  of  sins. 
He  sat  down  on  the  right  hand  of  Majesty  on  high." 
And  it  is  thought  that  the  insertion  of  "our"  before 
"  sins "  was  due  to  a  desire  on  the  part  of  some 
transcribers  to  show  that  the  sins  for  which  He  suffered 
were  not  His  own. 

There  only  remains  to  be  noticed,  as  another  cause  of 
various  readings  in  the  New  Testament,  the  occurrence 
of  oversight  or  mistake  on  the  part  of  transcribers. 
This  may  be  illustrated  by  a  reference  to  several  par- 
ticulars. 

A  very  frequent  cause  of  error  was  found  in  those 
words  of  like  ending  which  occurred  in  the  manuscripts. 


Causes  of  Various  Readings  in  the  New  Testament.  15 

Suppose,  for  the  sake  of  illustration,  that  a  transcriber 
is  copying  a  passage  in  which  the  word  "  disciples  "  is 
read  at  the  end  of  two  successive  verses.  He  tran- 
scribes the  first  verse,  and  then,  looking  up  from  his 
work  to  the  copy  before  him,  his  eye  unfortunately 
lights  upon  the  end  of  the  second  verse,  no  part  of 
which  has  yet  been  written.  He  sees  the  word 
"disciples"  which  his  pen  has  just  traced;  and,  not 
perceiving  that  the  second  verse  in  which  it  occurs  still 
remains  untranscribed,  he  proceeds  with  his  work,  and 
leaves  out  that  verse  altogether.  This  has  been  a  very 
fruitful  source  of  error  in  manuscripts  of  the  New 
Testament.  For  an  example  we  may  refer  to  Matt. 
xii.  46.  That  verse  is  entirely  omitted  in  some  excel- 
lent manuscripts.  And,  for  a  very  obvious  reason.  It 
ends  in  the  Greek  with  exactly  the  same  w^ord  as  the 
preceding  verse,  and  has  thus,  in  some  cases,  been 
altogether  overlooked  by  transcribers.  Similar  mistakes 
abound  in  the  manuscripts. 

Again,  one  word  was  often  mistaken  for  another 
which  strongly  resembled  it.  This  error  frequently 
occurs  even  in  printed  books  at  the  present  day.  We 
have  seen  "humour"  substituted  for  "human,"  and 
"antimonies"  standing  where  "antinomies"  was  in- 
tended. Now,  in  Greek  there  is  only  the  difference  of 
a  single  letter  between  the  word  meaning  "  edification  " 
and  the  word  meaning  "dispensation."  Hence,  at 
1  Tim.  i.  4  we  find  in  the  Authorized  Version  "godly 
edifying  which  is  in  faith,"  instead  of  the  true  reading, 
"  God's  dispensation  which  is  in  faith."     Copyists  have 


16  Causes  of  Various  Readings  in  the  New  Testament. 

also  sometimes  confounded  the  Greek  for  "  they  took " 
with  the  Greek  for  "they  cast,"  the  two  words  con- 
sisting of  exactly  the  same  letters  with  a  very  slight 
difference  of  arrangement. 

Errors  have  also  arisen  from  the  style  of  writing 
characteristic  of  the  most  ancient  manuscripts.  These 
are  written  throughout  in  uncial  or  capital  letters,  without 
division  or  interpunction.  Hence  a  different  sense 
from  the  true  one  might  sometimes  be  attached  by 
copyists  to  the  words.  The  following  illustration  may 
be  given: — If  we  write  NOWHEEE  without  any 
separation  between  the  letters,  either  "now  here"  or 
"  no  where  "  may  be  understood  to  be  the  words  in- 
tended. In  like  manner,  some  various  readings  have 
arisen  in  the  New  Testament  from  the  possibility  which 
exists  in  several  passages  of  dividing  the  Greek  in 
different  ways,  and  from  one  of  these  being  preferred 
by  one  transcriber  and  another  by  another. 

Lastly,  some  important  various  readings  have  arisen 
from  transcribers  admitting  glosses  and  marginal  notes 
into  the  text.  Examples  of  this  kind  are  furnished  in 
the  insertion  of  these  words  at  John  v.  3,  4,  "waiting 
for  the  moving  of  the  water.  Eor  an  angel  went  down 
at  a  certain  season  into  the  pool,  and  troubled  the 
water:  whosoever  then  first,  after  the  troubling  of  the 
water,  stepped  in,  was  made  whole  of  whatsoever  disease 
he  had;"  and  in  the  insertion  of  Acts  viii.  37,  "And 
Philip  said.  If  thou  believest  with  all  thine  heart,  thou 
mayest.  And  he  answered  and  said,  I  believe  that 
Jesus  Christ  is  the  Son  of  God."     The  first  of  these 


Causes  of  Various  Readings  in  the  Neiu  Testament.  17 

passages  was  probably  a  marginal  gloss  explanatory  of 
the  popular  belief  on  tlie  subject  referred  to,  and  tlie 
second  a  regular  baptismal  formula — both  in  course  of 
time  finding  their  way  into  the  text.  Doxologies  too 
were  apt  to  creep  in  from  the  constant  use  made  of  them 
in  the  services  of  the  Church ;  and  various  particulars, 
having  once  obtained  a  place  on  the  margin  of  the 
manuscripts,  by  and  by  succeeded  in  intruding  them- 
selves into  the  text.  This  fact  has  led  Biblical 
critics  to  adopt  as  another  great  general  principle  by 
which  they  are  influenced  in  seeking  to  restore  the 
genuine  words  of  the  New  Testament — that,  in  most 
cases,  the  shorter  reading  is  to  be  preferred  to  the 
longer,  as  having  been,  in  all  probability,  the  form 
which  the  text  exhibited  in  the  autograph  of  the 
sacred  writers. 


V 


K 


CHAPTEE  11. 

NATUEE  AND  AMOUNT  OF  THE  VARIOUS  READINGS. 

S  the  result  of  those  causes  enumerated  and 
explained  in  the  preceding  Chapter,  and 
perhaps  of  some  other  minor  influences,  the 
amount  of  variation  existing  in  manuscripts 
of  the  'New  Testament  is  very  great.  It  is  not  a  little 
startling  at  first  to  be  told,  as  Biblical  critics  do  tell  us, 
that  there  are  no  fewer  than  150,000  various  readings 
within  the  compass  of  the  New  Testament.  This  fact 
has,  of  course,  been  laid  hold  of  by  the  enemies  of  divine 
revelation,  and  has  at  times  caused  no  small  alarm  to  its 
friends.  Like  geology  in  our  own  day,  Biblical  criti- 
cism was  formerly  appealed  to  by  one  class  as  destructive 
of  the  authority  of  the  New  Testament,  and  was  feared 
and  discountenanced  by  another  class  as  being  really 
hostile  to  the  interests  of  sacred  truth. 

As  a  specimen  of  the  one  class,  we  may  refer  to 
Collins,  one  of  the  English  Deists  of  the  last  century. 
In  his  book  entitled  Discourse  of  Freetliinking,  pub- 
lished   in    1713,  he    endeavoured   to    throw    discredit 


Nature  and  Amount  of  the  Various  Readings.      19 

upon  the  New  Testament  from  the  great  variety  of  read- 
ings which  existed  in  its  text.  Uncertainty  as  to  the 
doctrines  which  it  tanght  was  represented  as  being  the 
necessary  result.  Freethinkers,  as  Collins  alleged,  w^ere 
thus  absolved  from  the  duty  of  paying  any  regard  to  the 
claims  of  revelation.  They  might  safely,  according  to 
him,  ignore  the  very  existence  of  the  New  Testament, 
until  its  friends  agreed  among  themselves  as  to  the 
genuine  text.  The  same  line  of  argument  has  been 
followed  by  some  sceptical  writers  in  more  recent  times, 
though,  for  very  sufficient  reasons,  which  will  soon  be 
brought  forward,  it  is  rarely  adopted  by  any  intelligent 
reasoners  at  the  present  day. 

As  specimens  of  the  other  class  referred  to,  we  may 
mention  the  names  of  Drs.  Owen  and  Whitby.  It  forms 
a  grievous  blot  on  the  memory  of  the  former  that  he 
assailed  the  very  learned  Brian  Walton  and  his  friends 
in  such  language  of  vituperation  for  having  employed 
their  "  unwilling  leisure,"  after  being  deprived  of  their 
livings  under  the  Commonwealth,  in  cultivating  the 
science  of  sacred  criticism,  and  bringing  to  light  the 
discrepancies  which  existed  among  the  manuscripts  of 
the  New  Testament.  In  venturing  to  deal  with  this 
subject,  the  great  Puritan  only  displayed  his  own  ignor- 
ance and  narrowness  of  comprehension.  The  same  may 
be  said  regarding  Whitby  in  the  assault  which  he  made 
on  the  New  Testament  of  Dr.  John  Mill.  This  learned 
work  appeared  in  1707,  and  was  distinguished  from  all 
the  editions  which  had  preceded  it  by  the  number  of 
various  readings  which  it  contained.     On  this  ground  it 


20      Nature  and  Amount  of  the  Various  Beadings.        ^ 

was  attacked  by  Dr.  Whitby,  and  its  autlior  was  accused 
of  liaviiig  rendered  the  text  of  Scripture  j:)?^(?ccmows. 
The  obvious  fact  was  overlooked  that  Mill  had  not 
invented  the  variations,  but  simply  revealed  them ;  and, 
instead  of  the  honour  which  should  have  been  paid  to 
that  illustrious  scholar  for  his  painstaking  labour  of 
thirty  years  on  the  sacred  text,  a  most  unworthy  attempt 
was  made  to  load  his  memory  with  obloquy,  and  to 
represent  his  life-long  work  as  having  tended  to  the 
weakening  instead  of  the  support  of  the  cause  of 
divine  revelation. 

Drs.  Owen  and  Whitby,  in  their  sincere  and  zealous 
but  unintelligent  attempts  to  defend  Scripture  against  a 
fancied  danger  to  which  it  was  exposed,  have,  unfortun- 
ately, proved  the  types  of  not  a  few  equally  earnest  but 
short-sighted  friends  of  the  Bible.  There  have  been 
those,  even  down  to  our  own  day,  who  have  been 
ever  ready  to  tremble  for  the  Word  of  God  when  con- 
fronted with  the  discoveries  of  science.  Such  persons 
forget  that  it  is  high  treason  to  the  truth  to  doubt  that 
it  will  survive  every  assault  which  can  be  made  against 
it ;  while,  in  their  ardent  but  narrow-minded  zeal,  they 
have  sometimes  had  recourse  to  abuse  instead  of  argu- 
ment, and  have  thus  given  an  advantage  to  their 
opponents,  which  no  discovery,  critical,  philosophical,  or 
scientific,  could  ever  have  furnished. 

When  we  come  to  examine  the  matter,  we  find  that 
the  vast  array  of  various  readings  which  has  been  men- 
tioned, and  which  appears  at  first  sight  so  formidable, 
loses  all  power  to  discompose  the  Christian,  and  even 


Nature  and  Amount  of  the  Various  Headings.  .  21 

becomes  to  him  a  source  of  congratulation  and  rejoicing. 
At  least  nine  out  of  every  ten  of  these  readings  are  of 
no  practical  importance  whatsoever.  They  involve  the 
mere  substitution  of  one  synonymous  word  for  another; 
or  the  use  of  a  compound  instead  of  a  simple  term ;  or 
a  change  of  the  order  in  which  different  words  or  clauses 
are  to  be  read ;  and  have  thus  scarcely  any  perceptible 
influence  on  the  meaning  of  the  text.  Sometimes,  for 
example,  in  one  manuscript,  one  Greek  word  is  used  for 
the  copulative  conjunction  and,  w^hile  in  a  second  a 
different,  but  perfectly  synonymous,  particle  is  employed, 
and  in  a  third  the  word  may  be  wanting  altogether. 
Sometimes  our  Lord  is  in  one  manuscript  referred  to 
under  the  name  of  Jesus ;  while  in  a  second  He  is  spoken 
of  at  the  same  place  as  Christ ;  in  a  third  He  may  be 
styled  Jesus  Christ ;  and  in  a  fourth  He  may  be  men- 
tioned as  Christ  Jesus.  These  are  specimens  of  by  far 
the  greater  number  of  the  various  readings,  and  are 
enough  to  show  how  unimportant  they  are  in  general 
to  our  faith  as  Christians,  and  how  little  reason  there  is 
either  for  the  unbeliever  to  boast,  or  the  believer  to  fear, 
on  account  of  the  mere  number  of  them  which  have  been 
collected. 

We  may  here  cite  the  words  of  one  of  the  greatest 
scholars  and  critics  that  England  ever  produced.  The 
illustrious  Eichard  Bentley  thus  writes  in  his  reply  to 
the  work  of  Collins  above  mentioned  : — "  The  real  text 
of  the  sacred  writers  does  not  now  (since  the  originals 
have  been  so  long  lost)  lie  in  any  manuscript  or  edition, 
but  is  dispersed  in  them  all.      'Tis  competently  exact 


22      Nature  and  Amount  of  the  Various  Readings. 

indeed  in  the  worst  manuscript  now  extant;  nor  is 
one  article  of  faith  or  moral  precept  either  perverted  or 
lost  in  them — choose  as  awkwardly  as  you  will,  choose 
the  worst  by  design,  out  of  the  whole  lump  of  readings." 
And  again : — "  Make  your  30,000  (various  readings)  as 
many  more,  if  number  of  copies  can  ever  reach  that 
sum :  all  the  better  to  a  knowing  and  a  serious 
reader,  who  is  thereby  more  richly  furnished  to  select 
what  he  sees  genuine.  But  even  put  them  into  the 
hands  of  a  knave  or  a  fool,  and  yet,  with  the  most 
sinistrous  and  absurd  choice,  he  shall  not  extin- 
guish the  light  of  any  one  chapter,  nor  so  disguise 
Christianity,  but  that  every  feature  of  it  will  still 
be  the  same."^ 

The  truth  of  the  matter  is,  as  has  been  hinted,  that  it 
constitutes  the  security  of  our  faith  as  Christians,  that 
such  a  vast  collection  of  various  readings  could  possibly 
have  been  formed.  Unless  God  had  deemed  it  proper 
to  exert  a  miraculous  power  over  the  New  Testament,  so 
as  to  preserve  it  from  all  risk  of  change  and  error,  the 
only  way  in  which  He  could  bestow  upon  us  the  means 
of  discovering  the  true  text  was  by  furnishing  us  in  His 
Providence  with  many  different  sources  to  which  we 
might  repair  in  seeking  to  ascertain  it.  As  in  other 
cases.  He  has  left  room  here  for  human  industry ;  and 
in  the  many  manuscripts  of  the  New  Testament  still 
extant  (all  of  course  more  ancient  than  the  date  of  the 
general  employment  of  printing)  we  are  presented  with 

^  Remarks  upon  a  late  Discourse  of  Freethinking,    in  a  Letter  to 
F.  H.,  D.D.,  hy  PMleleutherus  Lipsiensis,  Part  i.  §  32. 


Nature  and  Amount  of  the  Various  Readings.      23 

the  field  on  which  our  diligence  is  to  be  exercised  in 
seeking  to  recover  the  very  words  of  evangelists  and 
apostles.  The  multitude  of  manuscripts  of  necessity 
increases  the  number  of  various  readings,  but  in  that 
very  number  is  found  the  assurance  that  our  labour  in 
seeking  after  the  original  text  shall  not  be  in  vain. 
This  point  will  be  made  abundantly  plain  by  the  follow- 
ing illustrations. 

There  are  some  of  the  classical  writers  in  the  printed 
editions  of  whose  works  not  a  single  various  reading  is 
to  be  found.  And  do  scholars  rejoice  on  that  account, 
or  is  the  text  therefore  to  be  regarded  as  free  from 
corruption  ?  Nay :  the  very  opposite  is  the  case. 
With  respect,  for  instance,  to  the  Eoman  historian 
Yelleius  Paterculus,  we  are  told  that  only  one  manu- 
script of  his  work  has  ever  been  discovered.  Accord- 
ingly, no  varieties  of  reading  are  to  be  found  in  the 
published  editions  of  Paterculus,  except  what  conjecture 
may  have  introduced.  But  the  consequence  is  that 
the  text  of  his  narrative  is  in  a  state  of  the  most 
hopeless  confusion.  Many  parts  of  it  are  totally 
unintelligible,  and,  simply  for  want  of  additional 
manuscripts  to  furnish  different  readings,  no  means 
whatever  exist  of  letting  in  any  light  upon  the  obscu- 
rities which  abound. 

Again,  only  one  ancient  manuscript  is  known  to 
scholars  which  contains  the  last  six  books  (xi.-xvi.)  of 
the  Annals  of  Tacitus.  The  result  is  that  the  text  of 
these  books  remains  in  the  most  corrupt  and  mutilated 
state.     The  only  way  of  repairing  and  restoring  it  is  by 


24      Nature  and  Amount  of  the  Various  Readings. 

the  exercise  of  conjectural  criticism.  Abundant  scope 
for  this  is  still  found,  and  every  fresh  editor  indulges  in 
some  attempts  at  emendation,  just  as  his  judgment  or 
fancy  suggests.  Now,  let  it  be  carefully  noted  that 
conjectural  criticism  is  entirely  banished  from  the  field 
of  the  New  Testament.  And  why  ?  Simply  because 
all  sober  critics  feel  that  there  is  no  need  for  it.  The 
wealth  at  their  command  in  the  multitude  of  copies  of 
the  sacred  text  still  extant  is  so  enormous,  and  the  means 
of  ascertaining,  by  painstaking  effort,  the  genuine  read- 
ings, is  so  ample  and  satisfactory,  that  no  one  would 
have  a  chance  of  being  listened  to  at  the  present  day 
who  should  propose  to  introduce  any  conjectural  emen- 
dation into  the  Scriptures.  It  matters  not  how  ingenious 
or  plausible  any  such  conjecture  might  appear.  There 
is  neither  room  nor  need  for  it  in  dealing  with  the  text 
of  the  New  Testament.  So  deeply  fixed  is  this  principle 
in  the  minds  of  Biblical  critics,  that  were  any  one 
simply  to  suggest,  in  connection  with  a  single  word  of 
Scripture,  that  the  region  of  fact  should  be  left  and  the 
realm  of  imagination  entered,  he  would,  by  so  doing,  be 
felt  and  declared  to  have  excluded  himself  from  among 
the  number  of  those  who  have  a  right  to  be  heard  upon 
the  subject. 

It  will  be  seen,  then,  that  the  very  fact  of  our  possess- 
ing so  many  varieties  of  reading  in  the  books  of  the 
New  Testament,  implies  the  vast  resources  which  we 
have  at  command  for  ascertaining  the  true  text,  and  is 
itself  a  reason  for  gratitude  to  that  gracious  Providence 


Nature  and  Amount  of  the  Various  Readings.      25 

which  has  thus  preserved  to  us  the  means  of  discover- 
ing, through  diligent  inquiry,  what  were  the  exact 
words  which  "holy  men  of  old"  employed,  when 
they  spoke  and  wrote  "as  they  were  moved  by  the 
Holy  Ghost." 


CHAPTEE   III 

EXISTING   MANUSCRIPTS    OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT. 

[HE  three  great  sources  whence  various  read- 
ings are  derived,  and  to  which  we  must 
repair  in  seeking  to  fix  the  genuine  text 
of  Scripture,  are  :  (1)  the  manuscripts  of  the 
New  Testament  still  known  to  exist ;  (2)  the  ancient 
versions  which  have  come  down  to  us  ;  and  (3)  those 
quotations  from  the  sacred  books  which  occur  in  the 
works  of  ancient  writers.  No  one  of  these  guides  to  a 
knowledge  of  the  original  text  can  be  implicitly  trusted. 
Even  the  most  valuable  manuscripts  contain  important 
and  obvious  errors.  The  best  versions  also  have  at 
times  mistaken  the  sense  of  the  original,  and  are  there- 
fore to  be  used  with  care  and  discrimination.  And 
very  many  of  those  quotations  of  Scripture  which  occur 
in  the  writings  of  the  Fathers  have  been  loosely  made, 
memory  having  been  trusted  to  for  giving  the  substance 
of  the  passage  quoted,  while  the  exact  words  of  the 
sacred  text  were  not  sought  to  be  preserved.  Illustra- 
tions of  the  various  kinds  of  errors  thus  indicated  will 
be  given  in  the  sequel. 


Existing  Manuscripts  of  the  Neio  Testament        27 

The  most  direct  and  important  source  of  textual 
criticism  is,  of  course,  that  furnished  in  still  existing 
and  available  manuscripts.  To  a  description  of  the 
most  valuable  of  these  the  present  Chapter  will  be 
devoted. 

The  manuscripts  of  the  New  Testament  have  been 
divided  into  two  classes,  which  are  known  as  Uncials 
and  Cursives,  according  to  the  manner  in  which  they 
are  written.  The  Uncials  are  so  called  because  they 
are  written  throughout  in  Greek  capital  letters.  The  Cur- 
sives, again,  correspond  more  with  the  mode  of  writing 
in  common  use  among  ourselves,  having  capitals  only  at 
the  beginning  of  sentences  or  paragraphs,  and  being 
otherwise  written  in  small  characters.  The  Uncials  are 
more  ancient,  and,  of  course,  much  less  numerous  than 
the  Cursives.  The  line  betv/een  the  two  may  be  drawn 
about  the  tenth  century;  and  while  existing  manuscripts 
of  the  New  Testament  anterior  to  that  date  can  be 
counted  only  by  tens,  those  belonging  to  the  period 
extending  from  the  tenth  to  the  sixteenth  century  are 
to  be  reckoned  by  hundreds. 

As  Ave  rise  to  an  antiquity  beyond  the  tenth  century, 
the  number  of  manuscripts  to  which  we  can  make 
appeal  becomes  rapidly  diminished.  In  addition  to 
some  precious  fragments,  there  are  only  five  manuscripts 
of  the  New  Testament  having  any  pretension  to  com- 
pleteness that  can  be  assigned  to  so  ancient  a  date  as 
between  the  fourth  and  the  sixth  century.  To  a  brief 
account  of  these  most  interesting  and  valuable  transcripts 


28       Existing  Manuscrvpts  of  the  New  Testameoit. 

of  the  New  Testament  what  remains  of  the  present 
Chapter  will  be  given. 

And  who  could  let  his  eye  rest  upon  the  yellow 
parchments  in  which  the  sacred  words  of  our  Lord  and 
His  disciples  have  been  preserved  in  these  ancient 
documents,  without  having  emotions  of  no  ordinary 
kind  excited  within  him  ?  Long  have  the  hands  which 
traced  these  antique  characters  mouldered  into  dust. 
Before  the  darkness  of  the  mediaeval  ages  had  obscured 
the  glory  of  ancient  literature  and  civilisation  were 
some  of  them  written.  Beyond  all  the  struggles  of 
modern  times — beyond  all  the  changes  flowing,  in  suc- 
cession, from  the  breaking  up  of  the  Eoman  Empire,  the 
domination  of  ecclesiastical  Home,  the  religious  and 
intellectual  emancipation  of  individuals  and  nations 
effected  by  the  Eeformation — are  we  carried  by  the 
inspection  of  any  one  of  these  witnesses  to  our  faith  as 
Christians.  While  thrones  have  been  overturned,  and 
empires  have  been  founded;  while  learning  has  died 
and  been  buried,  and  again  enjoyed  a  happy  resurrec- 
tion ;  while  the  tide  of  conquest  has  surged  from  shore 
to  shore,  and  one  nation  after  another  become  the 
leading  people  upon  earth, — it  has  pleased  God  to 
preserve  in  these  perishable  pages  the  record  of  His  love 
to  man,  and  of  the  provision  which  He  has  made  for 
the  salvation  of  sinners.  It  is  with  a  kind  of  reverence 
that  we  gaze  upon  these  faded  yet  still  legible  transcripts 
of'  the  word  of  God.  We  find  in  them  the  very  same 
counsels,  instructions,  and  promises,  as  are  contained  in 
those  printed  copies  of  the  Bible  with  which  we  are  all 


Existing  Manuscri^pts  of  the  Nevj  Testament.        29 

familiar ;  but  there  seems  a.  solemnity  about  their  utter- 
ances which  can  belong  to  no  modern  volume.  It  is 
almost  felt,  while  lingering  over  their  contents,  as  if  we 
actually  listened  to  the  voice  of  John,  or  Peter,  or  Paul ; 
and,  far  removed  from  the  stormy  contentions  of  those 
rival  sects  which  have  risen  up  in  the  modern  Christian 
world,  were  privileged  to  hear,  as  within  the  solemn 
silence  of  some  vast  cathedral,  or  under  the  quietude  of 
a  starlit  sky,  the  words  of  eternal  life.  We  draw  near, 
therefore,  with  a  kind  of  awe  as  well  as  interest,  to 
inspect  those  treasures  of  this  kind  which  time  has 
spared,  if,  on  any  occasion,  such  a  privilege  is  afforded 
us.  And  if,  as  must  be  the  case  with  most,  we  never 
have  an  opportunity  of  actually  looking  with  our  own 
eyes  on  these  precious  documents,  we  cannot  but  be 
glad  to  have  them,  as  it  were,  brought  before  us 
through  the  descriptions  of  them  which  have  been 
given  by  the  faithful  and  diligent  pens  of  textual 
critics. 

It  is  usual  among  Biblical  scholars  to  distinguish  the 
ancient  manuscripts  of  the  New  Testament  by  the  use 
of  the  letters  of  the  alphabet.  The  designations  thus 
given  them  have  been  accepted  throughout  Christendom, 
and  furnish  an  easy  as  well  as  concise  means  of 
reference. 

A,  OR  THE  AlEXANDKIAN  CoDEX. 

This  manuscript  is  preserved  in  the  British  Museum, 
and  constitutes  one  of  the  most  precious  literary 
treasures  belonging  to  our  country.      As  in  the  case 


30        Existing  Manuscripts  of  the  New  Testament. 

of  the  other  ancient  manuscripts,  very  little  is  known 
of  its  history.  It  has  been  in  this  country  since  the 
year  1628,  having  been  sent,  in  that  year,  through  the 
English  ambassador  in  Turkey,  as  a  present  to  Charles  I. 
from  Cyril,  then  Patriarch  of  Constantinople.  A  short 
account  of  the  previous  history  of  the  manuscript  was 
also  transmitted  by  Cyril,  and  is  still  prefixed  to  its 
first  volume.  We  learn  from  this  notice  that  the 
manuscript  was  wTitten  by  one  named  Thecla,  who  is 
described  as  having  suffered  martyrdom,  but  when  or 
where  is  utterly  unknown.  It  has  been  supposed,  from 
some  peculiarities  in  the  orthography,  that  Egypt  was 
the  country  in  which  the  manuscript  was  written,  but 
this  is  a  point  exceedingly  doubtful.  There  need  be  no 
question,  however,  that  it  was  brought  by  Cyril  from 
Alexandria;  and,  on  this  account,  it  is  generally 
spoken  of  as  the  Codex  Alexandrinus,  or  Alexandrian 
Manuscript. 

Several  considerations  lead  us  to  the  conclusion  that 
this  manuscript  is  not  less  than  1400  years  old,  belong- 
ing to  a  date  about  the  middle  of  the  fifth  century. 
As  already  stated,  it  is  written  throughout  in  capital 
letters,  and  this  of  itself  is  a  mark  of  high  antiquity. 
The  letters  are  in  general  of  uniform  size,  the  excep- 
tions being  at  the  commencement  of  a  new  section, 
where  a  larger  character  is  used,  and  in  places,  chiefly 
at  the  end  of  lines,  in  wdiich  the  transcriber,  being 
pressed  for  space,  has  made  use  of  smaller  letters. 
Another  indication  of  the  very  ancient  date  of  the 
manuscript  is  found  in  the  fact  that  no  division  occurs 


Existing  Manuscripts  of  the  New  Testament.        31 

between  the  words ;  and  that,  except  at  the  close  of  the 
sentences  or  paragraphs,  no  punctuation  exists.  This 
peculiarity,  common  to  all  the  most  ancient  manuscripts, 
causes  at  first  no  small  difficulty  to  the  reader.  Every 
one  will  understand  this  by  glancing  at  the  following 
familiar  verse,  given  in  English  in  imitation  of  the 
fashion  followed  in  Greek  by  the  early  uncial  manuscripts. 

INTHEBEGINNINGWASTHEWOEDANDTHE 
WOEDWASWITHGODANDTHEWOEDWASGOD. 

John  i.  1. 

The  eye,  it  will  be  felt,  requires  considerable  practice 
before  it  is  able  readily  to  separate  words  which  all 
seem  to  run  together  in  the  Avriting,  and  which  are  only 
to  be  distinguished  by  a  familiar  acquaintance  with  the 
language  and  by  the  sense  of  the  passage. 

In  addition  to  these  marks  of  great  antiquity,  there 
are  other  features  presented  by  the  Alexandrian  manu- 
script which  lead  us  to  assign  it  to  the  date  that  has 
been  above  suggested.  One  of  these  is  that  it  does  not 
contain  those  divisions  of  the  Acts  and  Epistles — 
generally  ascribed  to  Euthalius,  Bishop  of  Sulce,  and 
corresponding  in  effect  to  our  modern  chapters,  which 
came  into  common  use  about  the  middle  of  the  fifth 
century.  This  fact  pretty  plainly  indicates  that  the 
manuscript  must  have  been  written  before  the  date 
just  mentioned.  On  the  other  hand,  as  the  manuscript 
does  contain  both  the  Ammonian  sections  and  the 
Eusebian  canons — earlier  modes  of  dividing  the  sacred 
text,  which  date  respectively  from  the  third  and  fourth 


32       Existing  Manuscripts  of  the  New  Testament 

centuries — we  are  thus  precluded  from  claiming  for  it  any 
considerably  higher  age  than  that  which  has  been  stated. 

Anotlier  mark  of  the  antiquity  of  the  Alexandrian 
manuscript  is,  that  it  comprises  the  Epistle  of  Clement 
amono-  the  canonical  books.  This  Clement,  who  is 
referred  to  by  the  Apostle  Paul  in  his  Epistle  to  the 
Philippians  (chap.  iv.  4)  in  terms  of  high  commen- 
dation, wrote,  about  the  end  of  tlie  first  century,  an 
epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  which  was,  for  a  considerable 
time,  held  by  many  cliurches  as  of  canonical  authority. 
It  is  a  very  beautiful  composition,  breathing  throughout 
a  spirit  of  Gospel  love  and  holiness,  but  disfigured  by 
some  fantastical  interpretations  of  Scripture,  and  admit- 
ting some  superstitious  and  erroneous  notions.  Com- 
pared with  the  inspired  writings,  it  is  feeble  and 
unimpressive,  and  it  niakes  no  claim  to  speak  with  the 
authority  pertaining  to  the  word  of  God.  But  from 
the  high  position  occupied  by  its  author,  as  one  of  the 
most  esteemed  friends  of  St.  Paul,  and  as  Bishop  of 
Eome,  it  secured  for  a  time  great  respect,  and  was, 
during  the  first  few  centuries,  read  in  many  churches  as 
part  of  the  New  Testament  Canon.  This  fact  accounts 
for  its  being  found  in  the  Alexandrian  Codex  (which  we 
may  remark  in  passing  contains  the  sole  copy  of  the 
.  Epistle  known  to  exist),  and  confirms  the  opinion, 
formed  on  other  grounds,  as  to  the  antiquity  of  that 
manuscript. 

All  considerations  indeed — whether  those  arising  from 
the  form  of  the  letters,  the  method  of  writing,  the 
marginal  references,  the  order  in  which  the  books  are 


Existing  Manuscripts  of  the  Neiu  Testament.        33 

arranged,  or  the  contents  of  the  manuscript — lead  us  to- 
the  conclusion  stated  above,  that  in  this  precious  docu- 
ment we  have  a  copy  of  the  New  Testament  written 
about  the  time  of  the  fall  of  the  Eoman  Empire  of  the 
West ;  and  that  thus,  more  lasting  than  the  sovereignty 
established  by  Eomulus,  which,  dating  from  the  foundation 
of  Eome  753  B.C.  to  the  subversion  of  the  Empire  towards 
the  end  of  the  fifth  century,  had  survived  about  1200 
years,  this  monument  of  our  faith  has  already  braved 
the  ravages  of  time  for  nearly  a  millennium  and  a  half: 
while  we  are  sure  that  now,  under  the  watchful  care  of  the 
librarians  of  the  British  Museum,  it  will  be  preserved  as 
far  as  possible  from  further  alteration  or  injury,  and  will 
be  handed  down  for  the  gratification  and  delight  of 
succeeding  generations. 

The  manuscript  just  described  is,  upon  the  whole,  very 
complete.  It  is  preserved  in  four  quarto  volumes,  the 
first  three  of  which  contain  the  Septuagint  Version  of 
the  Old  Testament  nearly  entire.  The  fourth  volume,  em- 
bracing the  New  Testament,  has  unfortunately  suffered 
more.  St.  Matthew's  Gospel  begins  with  the  Greek  for 
"Go  ye  out,"  in  chap.  xxv.  6,  all  that  precedes  having  been 
lost.  In  St.  John's  Gospel,  two  leaves  have  perished, 
which  had  included  the  text  from  the  words  "  that  a 
man,"  chap.  vi.  50,  to  the  words  "  thou  sayest,"  chap, 
viii.  52.  Again,  three  leaves  have  disappeared  from  the 
second  Epistle  of  St.  Paul  to  the  Corinthians,  embracing 
the  text  from  these  words,  "  I  believed,"  chap.  iv.  13,  to 
the  words  "  of  me,"  chap.  xii.  6.  •  With  these  exceptions, 
the  text  of  the  New  Testament  is  complete. 


34       Existing  Manuscripts  of  the  Neio  Testament. 

It  only  remains  to  be  noticed  further  with  respect  to 
the  Alexandrian  manuscript,  that  a  facsimile  edition  of 
the  New  Testament  portion  of  it  was  published  in  1799 
by  Dr.  Woide,  and  that  the  Old  Testament  was  issued 
in  like  manner  in  1816-28  under  the  care  of  Mr.  Baber. 
These  truly  magnificent  works  may  be  consulted  at  any 
time  by  those  having  access  to  the  reading-room  of  the 
Museum,  and  furnish,  upon  the  whole,  a  very  fair 
representation  of  the  original.  The  manuscript  itself 
is,  of  course,  jealously  guarded ;  but  a  volume  of  it  is  to 
be  seen  under  glass  on  any  of  the  days  on  which  the 
Museum  is  open  to  the  public,  and  may  worthily  attract 
the  attention  of  all  that  have,  at  any  time,  an  oppor- 
tunity of  inspecting  the  literary  treasures  belonging  to 
that  great  national  institution. 

B,  OR  THE  Vatican  Codex. 

The  manuscript  known  as  B  is  still  more  interesting 
and  precious  than  that  which  has  already  been  described. 
It  is  preserved  in  the  Vatican  Library  at  Eome,  and  is, 
on  that  account,  generally  referred  to  as  the  Codex  Vati- 
canus,  or  Vatican  Manuscript.  Scarcely  anything  is 
known  of  its  external  history.  We  are  sure  that  for  the 
last  four  hundred  years  it  has  belonged  to  the  Papal 
library ;  but  how  it  was  procured,  or  whence  it  came,  no 
one  has  been  able  to  determine.  It  is  WTitten  on  very 
fine  parchment,  in  capital  letters,  which  bear  a  remark- 
able resemblance  to  those  in  some  of  the  manuscripts  dis- 
covered at  Herculaneum.  This  one  fact  is  enough  to 
suggest  its  high  antiquity,  and  all  the  other  phenomena 


Existing  Manuscripts  of  the  New  Testament.        35 

whicli  it  presents  are  in  favour  of  this  conclusion.  It 
is  probably  at  least  a  century  older  than  the  Alexandrian 
manuscript ;  and  it  has,  until  lately,  been  deemed 
altogether  without  a  rival,  in  point  both  of  age  and 
value,  among  existing  manuscripts  of  the  New  Testament. 

The  intrinsic  interest  attaching  to  this  precious  docu- 
ment has  been  not  a  little  increased  by  the  strange 
history  which  has  attended  it.  There  is  an  element  of 
romance  in  Biblical  criticism  as  in  other  sciences,  and 
this  comes  out  very  strongly  in  connection  with  the 
Vatican  manuscript.  It  has  been  kept  very  close  in  its 
prison  at  Eome.  The  greatest  difficulty  has  been 
experienced  by  scholars  in  getting  even  a  look  of  it. 
Once  indeed,  or  rather  twice,  it  seemed  likely  to  escape 
for  ever  from  its  cage,  and  to  be  fully  displayed  to  the 
eager  eyes  of  Biblical  critics.  Among  many  other 
treasures,  literary  and  artistic,  it  was  carried  by  ISTapoleon 
to  Paris  during  his  career  of  triumph ;  and  some  friends 
of  sacred  science  had  then  an  opportunity  of  inspecting 
and  describing  it.  But,  on  the  downfall  of  the  great 
conqueror,  it  was  restored  to  the  Pope ;  and,  without 
having  been  examined  by  any  thoroughly  competent 
critic,  it  fell  once  more  under  the  jealous  guardianship 
of  the  authorities  at  Eome.  An  edition  of  it  was  often 
promised,  but  the  hopes  thus  excited  were,  from  time  to 
time,  disappointed. 

Amid  the  revolutionary  troubles  of  1848,  when  the 
Pope  was  compelled  to  flee  from  Eome,  expectation  was 
again  raised  to  a  high  pitch  that  this  precious  manu- 
script would   become  more  accessible  to   the   learned 


36        Existing  Manuscripts  of  the  New  Testament. 

world  than  it  had  ever  been  before.  But  fortune  was 
once  more  adverse.  His  Holiness  was  speedily  restored, 
and,  with  his  return,  hope  was  again  extinguished. 

At  length,  in  1857,  Biblical  scholars  throughout 
Christendom  were  excited  by  the  intelligence  that  a 
transcript  of  the  Vatican  manuscript  was  immediately 
to  be  published.  Cardinal  Wiseman,  in  his  work  entitled 
"  Recollections  of  the  last  Four  Popes,"  took  occasion  to 
refer  to  this  matter,  and  announced  the  edition — pre- 
pared by  the  late  Cardinal  Mai  and  revised  by  others 
whom  the  Papal  government  had  appointed  after  his 
death — as  being  ready  for  immediate  publication. 

It  came :  but  deep  was  the  disappointment  which  its 
character  immediately  caused.  Instead  of  that  accurate 
transcript  which  had  been  promised,  it  was  found  that 
the  work  was  full  of  errors.  The  most  uncritical  pro- 
cesses had  been  followed  in  its  preparation.  Numerous 
passages  had  even  been  inserted  without  the  least 
authority  from  the  manuscript.  The  publication  was 
little  more  than  what  some  scholars  in  the  bitterness  of 
their  disappointment  styled  it — a  copy  of  the  BiUe 
according  to  Bomc.  So,  after  all  the  efforts  which  had 
been  made,  all  the  labour  which  had  been  expended, 
and  all  the  expectations  which  had  been  cherished, 
students  of  the  sacred  text  were  still  left  without  a 
reliable  copy  of  the  queen  of  all  the  manuscripts  of  the 
New  Testament. 

After  the  date  of  Mai's  edition,  several  scholars  were 
successful  in  obtaining  a  look  of  the  Vatican  manuscript. 
,But  in  most  cases,  they  scarcely  obtained  more  than 


Existing  Manuscripts  of  the  New  Testament        37 

a  glimpse.  Sometimes  they  were  permitted  to  glance 
at  tlie  manuscript,  but  not  examine  it;  and  at  other 
times  tliey  had  scarcely  begun  the  work  of  collation, 
when  liberty  of  access  to  the  manuscript  was  withdrawn. 
Tischendorf,  however,  was  somewhat  more  fortunate 
in  this  matter  than  other  scholars.  It  seemed  indeed,  at 
one  time,  as  if  we  should  obtain  a  full  collation  of  the 
manuscript  through  his  labours  in  connection  with  it. 
But  disappointment  yet  again  was  experienced.  Instead 
of  unlimited  access  to  the  manuscript,  which  seemed 
at  first  to  have  been  granted  him  in  February  1866, 
it  turned  out  that  he  was  allowed  to  use  it  only  for 
some  forty  hours.  Admirably  was  the  time  employed. 
Within  the  brief  period  named,  he  examined  aU  the 
passages  in  the  New  Testament  in  which  the  readings  of 
the  manuscript  were  still  doubtful;  he  made  a  full  colla- 
tion of  nearly  the  whole  of  the  first  three  Gospels  :  and  he 
copied  in  facsimile  some  twenty  pages  of  the  manuscript. 
Subsequent  events  have  explained  and  perhaps 
justified  the  arrest  thus  put  upon  the  labours  of  Tischen- 
dorf. The  Pope  assured  him  at  the  time  that  a  fac- 
simile edition  of  the  manuscript  was  just  about  to 
be  published.  And,  in  accordance  with  this  promise, 
the  work  did  come  out  in  1868  from  the  Papal  press  at 
Ptome.  Pleasing  is  it  to  be  able  to  add  that  this  edition 
seems  to  leave  nothing  more  to  be  desired.  It  is  in  five 
large  volumes,  the  first  four  containing  the  Septuagint  Ver- 
sion of  the  Old  Testament,  and  the  last  comprising  what 
remains  of  the  New  Testament.  The  ideal  aimed  at  in 
Pio  ISTono's  edition,  as  this  one  may  be  called,  was  very 


38       Existing  Manuscripts  of  the  New  Testament. 

different  from  that  adopted  by  Cardinal  Mai,  being 
nothing  less  than  to  reproduce  the  very  "form,  lines, 
letters,  strokes,  marks  "  of  the  manuscript  itself  This 
high  standard  appears  to  have  been  scrupulously  ad- 
hered to  throughout.  The  editors  were  two  eminent 
Biblical  scholars,  Vercellone  and  Cozza  ;  and  they  seem 
to  have  done  all  that  human  care  and  erudition  could 
effect  to  present  to  the  world  a  faithful  representation  of 
the  famous  Vatican  manuscript. 

It  will  not  be  the  least  of  the  glories  of  Pio 
ISTono's  pontificate,  that,  under  his  auspices,  a  facsimile 
edition  of  this  precious  document  has  at  length  been 
presented  to  the  world.  And,  considering  how  nobly  the 
assurance  given  to  Tischendorf  has  been  fulfilled,  we 
readily  forgive  the  hindrances  which  were  placed  in  the 
way  of  that  indefatigable  explorer,  when  he  sought 
to  copy  page  after  page  of  the  manuscript.  It  was 
right  that  the  honour  of  giving  it  to  the  world  should 
belong  to  the  Papal  court.  We  hail  with  gratitude  the 
boon  conferred  on  textual  criticism  by  the  splendid  and 
apparently  most  satisfactory  edition  of  1868 ;  and  we 
rejoice  that  critics  will  no  longer  be  thwarted  or 
tantalized  in  their  efforts  to  obtain  an  accurate  acquaint- 
ance with  the  contents  of  one  of  the  most  valuable 
witnesses  to  the  genuine  text  of  the  New  Testament. 

C,  OK  THE  Codex  of  Ephraem. 
We  find  in  this  manuscript  some  features  of  interest 
peculiarly    its    own.      It   is   a  palimpsest,   that   is,   a 
manuscript   containing   two   different   works,   the   one 


Existing  Manuscripts  of  the  New  Testament.        39 

written  over  the  other.     Owing  to  the  scarcity  and  high 
price  of  parchment,  it  was  not  unusual  for  writers  of  the 
Middle  Ages  to  have  recourse  to   such  an  expedient. 
Often  in  this  way  did  they  sacrifice  some  valuable  work, 
in  order  to  find  material  on  which  to  inscribe  a  monkish 
legend  or  an  ecclesiastical  writing   of  very  secondary 
importance.      Some    of    the    masterpieces    of  ancient 
eloquence   have   been   discovered   under    the    literary 
lumber  thus  superinduced  upon  them.      A  strange  per- 
versity of  taste  seems  to  have  seized  these  mediaeval 
transcribers,  when  they  buried  such  works  as  those  of 
Cicero  beneath  the  barbarous  jargon  of  some  subtle  dis- 
putant, or  the  mystical  speculations  of  some  reputed  saint. 
In  regard  to  the  manuscript  under  consideration,  it 
is  one  of  the  writings  of  the  Syrian  hymnologist  and 
theologian  Ephraem  that  had  been  chosen  to  overlay 
the   text   of  the   New  Testament.      On  this  account, 
the   manuscript  is   generally  spoken  of  as  the   Codex 
Ephracmi,  when  not  referred  to  simply  under  the  desig- 
nation of  C.     It  is  preserved  in  the  National  Librar}^ 
in  Paris.     AVe  know  that  it  was  brought  into  France 
by   Catherine   de   Medici,  and  that  it  previously  be- 
longed  to   Cardinal   Eidolfi,   nephew  of  Pope  Leo  X. 
Its  history  cannot  be  traced  with  any  certainty  to  a 
more  remote  date.     But  Tischendorf  has  conjectured, 
with  great  probability,  that  it  is  one  of  the  manuscripts 
which   were   obtained   by  Andrew   Lascaris,   who,   on 
the  taking  of  Constantinople  by  the  Turks,  was  sent 
into  the  East  by  Lorenzo  de  Medici  to  collect  any  such 
ancient  writings  as  had  escaped  their  ravages. 


40       Existing  Manuscripts  of  the  New  Testament. 

A  lengthened  period  elapsed  before  the  true  value  of 
this  manuscript  was  discovered.  Not  until  near  the  end 
of  the  seventeenth  century  did  any  one  observe  the  sacred 
text  under  the  more  recent  transcript  of  the  treatise  of 
Ephraem.  But  when  the  discovery  was  at  last  made  by 
Allix,  scholars  soon  recognised  the  vast  importance  of  the 
treasure  thus  unveiled.  Every  effort  was  made  to  restore 
the  ancient  waiting,  and  at  length,  by  the  aid  of  a 
chemical  preparation,  this  was  done  with  great  success. 
In  the  year  1834  a  particular  tincture  was  applied  to 
the  parchment,  which  has  had  the  effect  of  greatly  dis- 
colouring it,  but  has,  at  the  same  time,  rendered  much 
of  the  original  writing  legible,  which  could  not  be  de- 
ciphered before.  Nearly  two-thirds  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, along  with  portions  of  the  Greek  translation  of 
the  Old  Testament,  are  preserved  in  this  manuscript. 
So  far  as  it  goes,  C  is  a  most  valuable  aid  to  the  textual 
critic.  It  had  evidently  been  written  with  great  care, 
comparing  favourably  in  this  respect  with  the  Alex- 
andrian or  even  the  Vatican  manuscript ;  and  it  un- 
doubtedly belongs  to  a  date  not  much,  if  anything,  below 
the  early  part  of  the  fifth  century.  . 

D,  OE  THE  Codex  of  Beza. 

There  is  yet  another  Biblical  manuscript  of  the  first 
class  which  it  is  the  honour  of  our  country  to  possess — 
that  know^n  as  D,  or  the  Codex  Bezce,  preserved  in  the 
University  of  Cambridge.  As  its  name  indicates,  this 
manuscript  was  formerly  the  property  of  the  celebrated 
Eeformer  Beza.     It  was  presented  by  him  in  the  year 


Existing  Manuscripts  of  the  New  Testament.  41 

1581  to  tlie  Academic  body  who  still  possess  it.  Before 
that  date,  it  had  been  in.  the  hands  of  Beza  about  twenty 
years,  and  was  obtained  by  him,  as  he  himself  tells 
us,  during  tlie  French  civil  wars  of  the  sixteenth  century, 
having  then  been  found  in  the  Monastery  of  St.  Irenseus 
at  Lyons.  We  cannot  trace  its  history  farther  back,  but 
the  palaeographic  and  other  internal  indications  which  it 
presents  have  led  scholars  pretty  generally  to  ascribe  it 
to  the  sixth  century.  It  is  the  least  valuable  of  all  the 
manuscripts  yet  noticed.  Only  the  Gospels  and  Acts  in 
Greek  and  Latin  are  preserved  in  it.  There  are  also 
many  manifest  corruptions  and  interpolations  which 
have  been  introduced  into  its  text.  Still,  from  the  un- 
doubted antiquity  of  the  manuscript,  it  has  strong 
claims  on  the  careful  consideration  of  Biblical  critics. 
It  was  published  in  facsimile  at  the  expense  of  the 
University  of  Cambridge  in  1793  ;  and  in  accordance 
with  the  Liberal  spirit  of  the  body  who  possess  it,  the 
manuscript  has  often  been  examined  and  employed  by 
critical  editors  of  the  New  Testament. 

b^,  OR  THE  Codex  Sinaiticus. 

Until  very  recently,  the  four  manuscripts  now  de- 
scribed were  all  the  very  ancient  copies  of  any  consider- 
able portion  of  the  New  Testament  known  to  exist. 
But  some  years  ago  the  learned  world  received  the 
very  unexpected  but  most  agreeable  intelligence  that 
a  manuscript  had  been  found  supposed  to  be  as  ancient 
as  the  Codex  Vaticanus,  and  more  complete  tlxan  any 
one  previously  known.      The  story  of  its  discovery  is 


42       Existing  Manuscripts  of  the  New  Testament 

curious,  and  may,  in  some  particulars,  be  regarded  as 
romantic. 

First  of  all,  forty- three  leaves  of  the  manuscript  were  ob- 
tained in  1844.  Professor  Tischendorf  was  travelling  in 
the  East  during  that  year  in  quest  of  ancient  manuscripts. 
While  at  the  convent  of  St.  Catharine  on  Mount  Sinai, 
his  eye  was  one  day  caught  by  a  number  of  vellum 
leaves  intended  to  be  used  in  lighting  the  stove.  He 
picked  these  out  from  a  heap  of  other  papers  destined 
for  the  same  purpose,  and  soon  perceived  that  they  con- 
tained portions  of  the  Septuagint  Version  of  the  Old 
Testament.  It  did  not  require  much  examination  from 
his  practised  eyes  to  convince  him  of  the  great  antiquity 
of  the  fragments ;  and  he  lost  no  time  in  securing  them. 
But  though  the  monks  had  been  easily  induced  to  part 
with  these  stray  leaves  in  utter  ignorance  of  their  value, 
they  resolutely  refused  to  let  him  see  any  more  of  the 
work  to  which  they  belonged,  now  that  he  had  told 
them  that  it  was  probably  as  ancient  as  the  fourth  cen- 
tury. Accordingly,  on  his  return  to  Europe,  he  pub- 
lished the  portion  he  had  procured  (embracing  the 
entire  books  of  Esther  and  ^ehemiah,  with  some  portions 
of  1  Chronicles  and  Jeremiah)  under  the  title  of  Codex 
Frederico-Augustanns,  that  designation  being  adopted 
because  he  had  obtained  these  fragments  while  travel- 
ling under  the  auspices  of  his  own  monarch,  Frederick 
Augustus  of  Saxony. 

Tischendorf  was  once  more  at  the  same  monastery  in 
1853,  and  did  not  forget  to  inquire  after  the  precious 
manuscript  of  which  he  had  discovered  some  traces  in 


Existing  Manuscripts  of  the  New  Testament.       43 

1844.  But  lie  could  learn  nothing  regarding  it.  As 
was  afterwards  found,  it  had  been  seen  by  two  visitors 
in  the  interval ;  but  Tischendorf,  knowing  nothing  of 
this,  concluded  that,  in  some  way  or  other,  it  had  dis- 
appeared, and  abandoned  all  hope  of  ever  hearing  more 
respecting  it. 

But  he  was,  for  the  third  time,  at  the  convent  of  St. 
Catharine  in  the  early  part  of  the  year  1859.  And  there,  j 
on  the  4th  of  February,  his  grand  discovery  was  made. 
He  had  put  into  his  hands  by  the  steward  of  the  con-  \ 
vent  a  manuscript  which  he  at  once  recognised  as  the  { 
long-sought  treasure.  The  communication  in  which 
Professor  Tischendorf  conveyed  the  intelligence  of  this 
inestimable  discovery  to  Biblical  scholars  in  Europe, 
bore  evidence  of  the  emotion  which  it  had  excited  in  his 
own  heart,  and  of  the  devout  eagerness  with  which  he 
set  himself  to  examine  its  contents.  Having  glanced 
over  the  work,  he  immediately  took  pen  in  hand,  and, 
insensible  to  fatigue,  he,  that  very  night,  copied  out  of 
it  the  Epistle  of  Barnabas  in  full — an  apocryphal  writing 
belonging  to  the  early  part  of  the  second  century,  the 
first  portion  of  which  had  not  till  then  been  known  in 
the  original  Greek  to  modern  scholars.  Soon  afterwards, 
Tischendorf  succeeded  in  obtaining  permission  to  copy 
the  whole  manuscript,  while,  better  still,  he  by  and  by 
persuaded  the  brethren  of  St.  Catharine  to  present  the 
precious  document  as  a  fitting  and  dutiful  offering  to 
their  great  head  and  patron  Jhe  Emperor  of  Eussia.  Ac- 
cordingly, it  was  without  delay  transmitted  to  Alexander 
II.,  and  is  now  preserved  in  the  Imperial  Library  at  St. 


44       Existing  Manuscripts  of  the  New  Testament. 

Petersburg.  A  splendid  edition  of  it,  consisting  of  300 
copies,  was  published  in  1862,  as  a  suitable  memorial 
of  tlie  thousandth  anniversary  of  the  empire  of  the  Czars ; 
and  these,  with  other  less  expensive  and  smaller  copies, 
are  now  in  the  possession  of  various  learned  men  and 
public  bodies  throughout  the  world. 

Every  internal  mark  presented  by  the  Sinaitic  manu- 
script points,  in  the  estimation  of  the  most  eminent 
palaeographers,  to  the  fourth,  or  at  latest  the  fifth,  century, 
as  the  time  when  it  was  written.     It  is  thus  perhaps  as 
old  as  the  Vatican  manuscript,  and  has  even  been  sup- 
posed, on  some  not  improbable  grounds,  to  be  one  of  the 
fifty   copies   of   Scripture   which   Eusebius,  Bishop  of 
Csesarea,  prepared  in  a.d.  331,  by  order  of  the  Emperor 
Constan tine,  for  the  use  of  his  new  capital,  Constantinople. 
Be  this  as  it  may,  the  Sinaitic  manuscript  has  one  great 
and  undoubted  advantage  over  all  the  other  ancient 
manuscripts,  in  containing  the  New  Testament  complete. 
The  Alexandrian  manuscript  is  defective  throughout  the 
greater  part  of  St.  Matthew's  Gospel,  and  also  in  several 
other  places.     The  Vatican  manuscript  wants  the  Epistle 
to  Philemon,  the  Pastoral  Epistles,  the  latter  part  of  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  and  the  Apocalypse.     The  Codex 
of  Ephraem  is  still  more  defective ;  while,  as  has  been 
already  noticed,  the  Codex  of  Beza  contains  only  the 
Gospels  and  Acts  in  the  original  Greek,  along  with  a 
Latin  translation.     But  the  Sinaitic  Codex  comprises 
the  whole  of  the  New  Testament  without  a  single  omis- 
sion, as  well  as  the  Epistle  of  Barnabas,  and  a  part  of 
the  Greek  text  of  the  writings  of  Hermas  (also  belonging 


Existing  Manuscripts  of  the  New  Testament.       45 

to  the  second  century) — works  wliich,  up  to  the  discovery 
of  this  unspeakably  precious  manuscrij^t,  had  been  known 
as  a  whole  only  through  an  early  Latin  version. 

It  is  unnecessary  for  our  present  purpose  to  give  a 
detailed  account  of  any  of  the  other  manuscripts  of  the 
New  Testament.  The  number  of  them  yet  discovered 
has  been  computed  as  follows : — 

Uncials  (4th  to  10th  century)         .     .         127 
Cursives  (10th  to  15th  century)     .     .       1456 


1583 
Such  is  the  manuscript  wealth  as  yet  available  to 
scholars  for  determining  the  true  text  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment. Tt  is  a  deeply  interesting '  question  whether  or 
not  there  is  reason  to  hope  that  other  discoveries  similar 
to  that  of  Tischendorf  still  remain  to  be  made.  For  our 
own  part,  we  cannot  help  believing  that  such  may  be 
the  case.  When  it  is  remembered  that  a  great  part  of 
Herculan-eum  is  yet  unexplored,  and  that  there  may  be 
preserved  in  its  hidden  chambers  not  only  some  works 
of  the  classical  writers,  which  scholars  have  long  mourned 
as  lost,  but  perhaps  copies  of  the  Sacred  Scriptures  them- 
sekves,  dating  almost  from  the  apostolic  age  :  when  it  is 
remembered  also,  that  there  are  supposed  still  to  be  in 
existence  at  Constantinople  vast  multitudes  of  manu- 
scripts, which  have  never  been  examined  since  the  over- 
throw of  the  Eastern  Empire  by  the  Turks  in  1453 : 
when  it  is  remembered  further  that,  scattered  throusfh 
the  Oriental  monasteries,  there  may  yet  be  treasures  the 


46        Existing  Manuscripts  of  the  New  Testament. 

existence  of  which  no  scholar  has  hitherto  suspected — 
it  does  not  seem  unreasonable  to  believe  that  Providence 
may  still  have  in  store  for  us  discoveries  that  will  at  once 
fill  our  minds  with  astonishment  and  our  hearts  with 
delight,  while  they  tend  more  and  more  to  purify  the 
text,  and  confirm  the  authority,  of  that  "  Word  which 
liveth  and  abideth  for  ever."  i 

1  See,  in  connection  with  the  hope  above  expressed,  De  Quincey's 
Works,  art.  on  Richo.rd  BentUy  (note),  and  Sir  Henry  Holland's 
Recollections  of  Past  Life,  p.  123. 


^ 


CHAPTEE  lY. 

ANCIENT  VERSIONS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

jN  this  chapter  we  are  to  glance  at  the  second 
source   of  textual  criticism  formerly  men- 
tioned— the   ancient   versions   of  the  New 
Testament    which    have    come    down     to 
our  own  day. 

It  must  be  evident  at  once  that  valuable  aid  will  often 
be  available  from  this  source  for  determining  the  true 
text  of  the  New  Testament.  Some  of  the  versions  were 
made  at  a  date  considerably  more  ancient  than  can  be 
assigned  to  any  manuscript  at  present  known  to  exist. 
They  thus  furnish  proof  regarding  the  prevailing  text  of 
Scripture  at  a  very  early  period  of  our  era.^ 

But  unfortunately  there  are  several  considerations 
which  detract  from  the  value  which  might  be  justly 
claimed  for  the  versions,  if  their  antiquity  only  w^ere 
regarded.  For  one  thing,  it  is  clear  that  they,  no  less 
than  the  Greek  New  Testament  itself,  were  liable  to 
corruption  with  the  lapse  of  time.     False  readings  might 

^  The  comparative  value  of  versions  as  testimonies  to  the  text  will 
be  found  again  referred  ,to  in  Part  Second,  Chap.  II. 


48  Ancient  Versions  of  the  New  Testament 

dreep  into  translations  as  easily  as  into  the  original ; 
so  that,  in  order  to  feel  any  confidence  while  using 
them  for  the  purpose  of  textual  criticism,  we  must 
have. good  reason  to  believe  that  they  are  still  in 
our  hands  in  the  genuine  form  which  they  at  first 
possessed. 

Moreover,  as  the  idioms  or  natural  characters  of  dif- 
ferent languages  vary  so  much,  it  would  obviously  be 
very  often  precarious,  and  sometimes  certainly  erroneous, 
to  infer  from  a  version  the  exact  words  which  stood  in 
the  original.  With  regard,  however,  to  the  genuineness 
or  the  spuriousness  of  clauses,  verses,  and  paragraphs, 
versions  may  justly  be  regarded  (so  far  as  unrevised 
and  unaccommodated  to  later  texts)  as  furnishing  most 
valuable  evidence. 

Again,  it  is  obvious  that  even  the  best  versions  may 
sometimes  have  mistaken  the  meaning  of  the  Greek, 
and  thus  may  tend  only  to  mislead  unless  used  with 
due  discrimination.  Errors  of  the  kind  referred  to  are 
to  be  found  in  every  translation,  and  would,  if  they 
escaped  notice,  lead  the  textual  critic  entirely  astray. 
Suppose,  in  illustration,  that  a  doubt  were  to  arise  as  to 
one  particular  Greek  phrase  used  in  Acts  iii.  19,  and 
that  the  present  authorized  English  version  were 
appealed  to  for  evidence  on  tlie  point.  We  there  find 
these  words  ascribed  to  the  Apostle — "  Eepent  ye  there- 
fore, and  be  converted,  that  your  sins  may  be  blotted 
out,  iclien  the  times  of  refreshing  shall  come  from  the 
presence  of  the  Lord."  Now  this  rendering  would 
suggest  a  totally  false  idea  of  the  original.     No  scholar 


Ancient  Versio7is  of  the  New  Testament.  49 

would  ever  dream  of  any  sucli  equivalent  for  tlie  English 
word  "when"  as  here  stands  in  the  original.  The 
passage  furnishes  a  case  of  sheer  mistranslation.  It 
should  be  rendered — "  Eepent  ye  therefore,  and  be  con- 
verted, that  your  sins  may  be  blotted  out,  in  order  that 
times  of  refreshing  may  come  from  the  presence  of  the 
Lord,  and  that  He  may  send  Jesus,  the  Christ,  which 
before  was  appointed  for  you,"  the  regimen  of  the  phrase 
translated  "  in  order  that"  being  continued  into  the  fol- 
lowing, verse.  The  passage  as  it  stands  in  our  English 
Version  would  thus  be  a  hindrance,  instead  of  a  help,  to 
the  discovery  of  the  original  text.  This  example  will 
perhaps  be  sufficient  to  show  that,  whatever  may  be 
the  antiquity  and  general  merits  of  a  translation  of  the 
New  Testament,  it  must  be  used  with  caution  in  the 
service  of  textual  criticism. 

But  there  is  still  another  and  more  serious  drawback 
on  the  value  of  %e  ancient  versions  as  now  considered. 
There  is  reason  to  believe  that  some  of  the  best  of  them 
have  not  come  down  to  us  in  their  original  state,  but 
have  been,  more  or  less,  conformed  to  later  texts  which 
had  obtained  ascendancy  in  the  Church.  They  can 
thus  only  be  regarded  as  bearing  testimony  to  the  text 
which  was  prevalent  at  the  time  when  the  revision  took 
place,  although  the  version  itself  may  be  much  more 
ancient."  Of  course,  the  farther  that  critics  can  go  in 
the  way  of  restoring  the  original  text  of  the  translation, 
the  greater  does  its  value  become  as  a  witness  to  the 
sacred  text.  With  these  preliminary  remarks,  we  now 
proceed  to  give  a  brief  account  of  those  versions  of  the 


60  Ancient  Versions  of  the  New  Testament. 

New  Testament  wliicli  are  of  most  importance  in  the 
department  of  textual  criticism. 

Syriac  Versions. 

A  Syriac  version  of  the  New  Testament,  and  probably 
also  of  the  Old,  existed  in  the  second  century.  Eusebius 
expresses  himself  in  a  way  which  seems  clearly  to  imply 
this,  and  the  fact  is  generally  admitted  by  modern 
scholars. 

The  most  important  of  the  Syriac  versions  is  that 
"known  as  the  Peshito,  or  Simple.  As  a  translation  it 
may  claim  high  rank,  being  generally  very  exact  in  its 
renderings — equally  free  from  slavish  literality  on  the  one 
side  and  loose  paraphrase  on  the  other. 

As  an  authority  for  the  text  of  the  Greek  New  Testa- 
ment, the  Peshito  would  be  possessed  of  transcendent 
importance  were  we  warranted  in  regarding  it  in  its 
present  state  as  truly  representative  of  the  Syriac  text 
of  the  second  century.  But  there  is  too  good  ground  for 
believing  that  such  is  not  the  case.  The  version  appears 
to  have  undergone  revision  in  the  course  of  the  fourth  cen- 
tury, and  to  have  been  conformed  to  the  text  which  had 
by  that  time  become  generally  prevalent  in  the  Church. 
This  suspicion,  or  rather  certainty,  prevents  us  from 
urging  its  authority  with  confidence  in  the  settlement  of 
disputed  readings.  It  contains,  for  example,  the  doxo- 
logy  to  the  Lord's  Prayer,  which  is  wanting  in  so  many 
ancient  authorities ;  and  could  we  be  sure  that  the  ver- 
sion possessed  that  clause  from  the  beginning,  a  most 
weighty  testimony  would  be  obtained  in  favour  of  the 


Ancient  Versions  of  the  Neiv  Testament.  51 

genuineness  of  the  words.     But  no  more  authority  can) 
with  certainty  be  claimed  for  it,  so  far  as  our  present . 
knowledge  of  the  version  extends,  than  belongs  to  a( 
witness  of  the  fourth  century.  One  of  the  greatest  services 
which  any  Biblical  scholar  could  render  to  the  cause  of 
textual  criticism  in  our  day  would  be  to  prepare  a  criti- 
cal and  trustworthy  edition  of  the  Peshito.     It  is  under- 
stood that  manuscripts  of  the  version  are  available  in 
numbers  amply  sufficient  for  this  purpose ;  and  we  can- 
not but  deeply  regret  that  such  an  edition  was  not 
brought   out   before   the   Eevision   of  our  Authorized 
Version,  at  present  in  progress,  was  commenced. 

A  second  Syriac  version  is  that  known  as  the  Plii- 
loxenian.  It  was  produced  at  the  instance  of  Philoxenus, 
who  was  Bishop  of  Mabug  or  Hierapolis  in  Eastern 
Syria  from  a.d.  488  to  a.d.  518.  This  version  was 
revised  in  A.D.  616  by  Thomas  of  Harkei,  also  Bishop 
of  Hierapolis.  Hence  it  is  also  known  as  the  Harclean. 
It  is  in  this  latter  form  that  the  work  is  almost  exclusively 
known  to  us.  As  a  translation,  it  is  of  a  very  wretched 
character,  being  marked  by  a  servile  adherence  to  the 
Greek,  which  is  totally  destructive  of  the  Syriac  idiom. 
But  this  very  circumstance  constitutes  its  value  as  an 
auxiliary  to  the  textual  critic.  By  its  close  and  even 
absurd  adherence  to  the  Greek  we  can  infer  exactly  the 
readings  of  that  text  which  the  translator  had  before 
him.  It  also  possesses  various  readings  from  older 
Greek  manuscripts  in  the  margin — a  fact  which  adds 
much  to  its  value.  We  learn  from  it  very  clearly  how 
great  was  the  amount  of  deflection  from  the  text  of  the 


52  Ancient  Versions  of  the  Neio  Testament. 

New  Testament  as  presented  in  the  most  ancient 
authorities  which  had  taken  place  at  the  time  when  it 
was  formed. 

Two  other  recensions  of  the  sacred  text  are  sometimes 
cited  by  critics  as  independent  Syriac  versions — named 
respectively  the  Jerusalem- Syriac  and  the  Karkaphen- 
sian.     They  are  of  comparatively  little  importance. 

Some  fragments  of  a  Syriac  version  of  the  Gospels, 
differing  from  those  already  described,  were  discovered 
by  Dr.  Cureton  among  the  Syrian  manuscripts  brought 
by  Archdeacon  Tattam  from  the  Mtrian  monasteries, 
and  now  in  the  British  Museum.  This  fragmentary 
version  was  published  in  1858,  and  is  known  as  the 
Curetonian.  Its  text  is  undoubtedly  ancient,  and  on 
that  account  interesting  and  valuable.  As  a  translation 
it  ranks  low,  having  often,  in  the  grossest  way,  mis- 
taken the  meaning  of  the  original  Greek. 

Latin  Versions. 

It  is  generally  agreed  by  scholars  at  the  present  day 
that  the  first  Latin  version  of  the  New  Testament 
was  made,  not  in  Italy,  but  in  Africa.  This  statement 
may  naturally  surprise  those  who  are  not  famiiliar  with 
the  linguistic  condition  of  Italy  in  the  generations 
immediately  following  the  first  promulgation  of  the 
Gospel  They  might  conclude,'  as  a  matter  of  course, 
that  it  would  be  felt  necessary  to  translate  the  sacred 
books  into  Latin  for  the  use  of  the  inhabitants  of  Italy. 
But  we  have  the  amplest  evidence  that  no  such  neces- 
sity did  in  reality  exist.     Greek  was  then  a  famiHar 


Ancient  Versions  of  the  New  Testament.  53 

language  tlirougliout  that  country.  Sucli  facts  as  the 
following  abundantly  prove  that  such  was  the  case. 
The  Apostle  Paul  (a.d.  58)  wrote  to  the  Eomans  in 
Greek.  Clement  of  Eome  (a.d.  97)  wrote  in  the  same 
language.  Ignatius  (a.d.  107),  like  Paul,  addressed  the 
Ptoman  Christians  in  Greek.  Justin  Martyr  (about  A.D. 
150),  although  long  resident  in  Ptome,  composed  his  two 
Apologies  to  the  Emperor  in  Greek.  From  these,  and 
many  similar  facts  which  might  be  quoted,^  we  conclude 
that  no  need  would  be  felt  in  the  earliest  times  for 
a  translation  of  the  New  Testament  into  Latin  in  order 
to  meet  the  necessities  of  the  inhabitants  of  Italy. 

Accordingly,  the  version  known  as  the  Vetus  Latina, 
or  "  Old  Latin,"  had  its  origin  in  Northern  Africa.  Its 
history  is  altogether  unknown.  But  we  find  it  used  by 
the  Latin  translator  of  Irenaeus  towards  the  close  of  the 
second  century,  and  by  TertuUian  a  little  later.  Several 
good  manuscripts  of  this  version  still  exist,  dating  from 
the  fourth  onwards  to  the  eleventh  century. 

This  old  Latin  version  was  revised  by  Jerome,  one  of 
the  most  learned  of  the  Fathers,  towards  the  close  of  the 
fourth  century.  His  principal  object  was  to  conform  the 
translation  more  accurately  to  the  text  of  the  best  Greek 
copies.  But  he  also  sought  to  improve  the  character  of 
the  version.  He  replaced  many  barbarisms  by  ex- 
pressions more  in  accordance  with  classical  usage,  and 
in  multitudes  of  passages  gave  a  closer  and  more  satis- 
factory rendering  of  the  original. 

^  See  Roberts'  Discussions  on  the  Gospels,  part  i. ,  chap.  ii. ;  and  Max 
Miiller's  Lectures  on  Language,  First  Series,  pp.  90-100. 


54  Ancient  Versions  of  the  New  Testament. 

As  is  always  the  case  with  a  new  revision  of  Scrip- 
ture, it  was  only  by  slow  degrees  that  the  work  of 
Jerome  took  the  place  of  the  Old  Latin.  Two  centuries 
elapsed  before  this  result  was  accomplished.  Partiality 
for  the  old  familiar  words,  and  prejudice  against  the 
new,  thus  for  a  long  period  prevented  the  general 
acceptance  of  the  improved  translation.  But,  as  cannot 
but  happen  at  last,  superior  excellence  at  length  pre- 
vailed. From  about  the  end  of  the  sixth  century,  the 
version  of  Jerome  became  the  acknowledged  Latin  Vul- 
gate, and  substantially  remains  so  at  the  present  day. 
Just  as  Tyndale's  translation  of  the  Bible  into  English 
will  continue  the  basis  of  every  version  of  the  Scriptures 
into  our  language  till  the  end  of  time,  whatever  may  be 
the  changes  and  improvements  which  are  introduced,  so 
the  work  of  Jerome  still  constitutes  the  substance  of  the 
Latin  Bible,  notwithstanding  the  revisions  to  which 
it  has  been  subjected.  Many  errors,  of  course,  crept 
into  the  text  in  the  course  of  the  Middle  Ages,  and  when 
the  art  of  printing  came  into  general  use,  the  necessity 
of  having  some  trustworthy  edition  prepared  was 
strongly  felt.  One  was  accordingly  brought  out  under 
the  auspices  of  Pope  Sixtus  V.  in  1590,  and  to  it 
the  title  "  Authentic  "  was  assigned.  But  this  edition 
was  soon  discovered  to  be  very  incorrect,  and  another 
was  issued  by  Clement  VIII.  in  1592.  The  Sixtine 
and  Clementine  editions  of  the  Yulgate  differ  widely 
between  themselves,  but  neither  can  be  regarded  as 
furnishing  a  satisfactory  text.  It  is  much  to  be  re- 
gretted that  such  a  valuable  manuscript  as  the  Codex 


Ancient  Versions  of  the  New  Testament.  55 

Amiatinus,  which  dates  from  about  the  year  a.d.  541, 
and  presents  an  admirable  transcript  of  the  text  of 
Jerome,  was  not  made  nse  of  in  the  preparation  of 
either  of  the  Papal  editions. 

These  early  Latin  versions  of  the  ISTew  Testament  are 
of  much  value  in  the  determination  of  the  text.  They 
in  general  adhere  with  great  closeness  to  the  Greek, 
the  very  order  of  the  words  in  the  original  being,  as  far 
as  possible,  retained.  They  thus  bear  testimony,  where 
still  in  their  primitive  condition,  to  the  text  of  the  New 
Testament  as  it  existed  in  a  very  remote  antiquity. 

Egyptian  Versions. 

There  are  two  complete  Egyptian  versions  of  the 
New  Testament  available  for  the  purposes  of  textual 
criticism.  These  are  known  respectively  as  the  Mem- 
lohitic  and  the  Thebaic.  There  are  also  some  fragments 
which  pass  under  the  name  of  the  Basmuric. 

We  are  in  utter  ignorance  as  to  the  history  of  the 
Egyptian  versions.  But  it  is  certain  that  the  two  are 
wholly  independent  of  each  other.  Before  this  fact  was 
known.  Biblical  scholars  were  accustomed  to  speak  of 
the  Co^ptic  as  the  version  of  all  Egypt — a  name  derived 
from  Coptos,  an  ancient  city  in  Upper  Egypt.  But  as  it 
has  been  proved  that  the  translations  current  in  Lower 
and  Upper  Egypt  are  totally  distinct,  the  versions  are 
now  distinguished  as  above. 

It  is  well  ascertained  that  two  dialects  prevailed 
in  Egypt  in  the  centuries  which  immediately  followed 
the  general  promulgation  of  the  Gospel.     One  of  these 


56  Ancient  Versions  of  the  New  Testament. 

was  in  use  in  Lower  Egypt,  and  was  called,  from  the 
capital  of  the  country,  the  Memphitic.  The  other  was 
employed  in  Upper  Egypt,  and  was  in  like  manner 
denominated  from  the  chief  town  of  the  district  the 
Thebaic. 

Versions  of  the  New  Testament  in  these  dialects  im- 
questionably  existed  in  the  fourth  century,  and  probably 
long  before.  No  doubt  Egypt,  like  the  rest  of  the 
civilized  world,  was  thoroughly  Ilelleni'^  at  the  com- 
mencement of  our  era,  so  that  the  Greek  Testament 
would  be  generally  understood  in  the  original,  in  Lower 
Egypt  at  least,  and  no  need  would  be  felt  for  a  translation. 
But  this  state  of  things  did  not  continue;  and  we  have 
every  reason  to  believe  that  the  Thebaic  version  of  the 
New  Testament,  prevalent  in  Upper  Egypt,  was  formed 
not  later  than  the  third  century,  and  was  followed  by 
the  Memphitic  at  no  distant  date.  These  version^  have 
been  as  yet  too  little  studied  to  be  greatly  available  for 
the  purposes  of  textual  criticism.  Doubtless,  as  scholar- 
ship extends  its  triumphs,  good  use  of  them  will  yet  be 
made. 

The  Basmuric  fragments  present  a  text  evidently 
moulded  upon  the  Thebaic.  They  are  valuable  only  as 
supplying  evidence  as  to  the  text  in  some  small  portions 
in  which  the  Thebaic  no  longer  exists. 

The  Gothic  Version. 

This  is  a  very  interesting  and  not  unimportant  version 
of  the  New  Testament,  though,  unfortunately,  it  has  not 
yet  been  found  in  a  complete  state.      It  was  made  by 


Ancient  Versions  of  the  New  Testament.  57 

Ulpliilas,  who  "became  Bishop  of  the  Goths  in  A.D.  348. 
He  had  adopted  Arianism,  and  died  while  on  a  visit  to 
Constantinople  (a.d.  388),  wdiither  he  had  gone  to 
defend  his  creed.  But  no  trace  of  his  doctrinal  views 
appears  in  his  great  work,  except  at  Philip,  ii.  6,  where 
he  substitutes  likeness  to  God  for  equality  with  God. 

The  most  celebrated  manuscript  of  this  version  is  the 
Codex  Argenteus,  or  "  Silver  Manuscript,"  preserved  in 
the  University  of  Upsala.  This  manuscript  derives  its 
name  from  the  fact  that  its  large  uncial  letters  are 
written  in.  silver  throughout,  except  those  at  the 
beginning  of  sections,  which  are  in  gold.  It  was  sent  to 
Stockholm  from  Prague  when  this  latter  city  surrendered 
to  the  Swedes  in  1G48.  The  date  of  the  manuscript  is 
probably  about  the  beginning  of  the  sixth  century.  It 
now  contains  only  fragments  of  the  Gospels  in  the^ 
following  order  (common  to  it  with  Manuscript  D  and 
some  others) — Matthew,  John,  Luke,  Mark. 

As  the  Gothic  version  dates  from  the  fourth  century, 
it  is  another  witness  to  the  text  then  prevalent  in  the 
Church.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  it  was  formed 
directly  from  the  Greek,  as  is  indicated  by  peculiar  con- 
structions, and  by  the  very  mistakes  wMcli  it  contains. 
Its  readings  are  of  great  weight  in  passages  where  it 
supports  those  of  the  more  ancient  authorities. 

The  Armenian  Veesion. 

The  Armenian  Christians  seem,  for  a  considerable 
period,  to  have  had  no  Bible  which  could  be  called  dis- 
tinctively  their  own.     Up  to  the   fifth  century,  they 


58  Ancient  Versions  of  the  New  Testament. 

appear  to  have  been  dependent  on  the  Syriac  version. 
At  length,  in  a.d.  431,  two  native  scholars,  who  had 
been  present  at  the  Council  of  Ephesus,  brought  back 
with  them  a  copy  of  the  Scriptures  in  Greek ;  and 
from  that  a  translation  was  made  into  the  Armenian 
language.  As  was  to  be  expected,  the  Syriac  Peshito 
had  an  influence  which  is  in  some  places  very  per- 
ceptible over  this  version.  In  its  more  modern  form,  as 
published  by  Uscan  in  1666,  it  has  also  been  suspected 
of  having  been  conformed  to  the  Latin,  but  there  seems 
no  good  ground  for  this  su]Dposition.  As  Dr.  Tregelles 
has  remarked,  "  Coincidence  of  reading  does  not  prove 
Latinizing  to  be  a  well-founded  charge." 

Textual  criticism  has  not  as  yet  made  much  use  of 
the  Armenian  version ;  and  both  its  date  and  character 
prevent  us  from  regarding  it  as  of  much  importance. 

The  tEthiopic  Version 

-^thiopic  was  formerly  the  language  of  Abyssinia,  but 
has  now  been  superseded  by  a  more  modern  dialect 
called  the  Amharic.  It  is  connected  with  the  Syriac, 
Arabic,  and  other  members  of  the  Semitic  family  of 
languages.  The  Abyssinians  were  converted  to  Chris- 
tianity by  Frumentius  in  the  fourth  century,  but  no  ver- 
sion of  the  sacred  writings  seems  to  have  been  made 
into  their  language  till  a  considerably  later  date — per- 
haps in  the  sixth  or  seventh  century. 

The  JEthiopic  version  of  the  New  Testament  was 
evidently  formed  from  the  Greek,  but  by  one  who  had 
no   very   accurate   acquaintance   with    that    language. 


Ancient  Versions  of  the  New  Testament.  59 

Till  a  more  exact  edition  has  been  issued  than  we  yet 
possess,  little  use  can  be  made  of  the  ^^thiopic  in  the 
service  of  textual  criticism  ;  and  even  were  such  an 
edition  produced,  the  version  itself  was  formed  too  late 
to  possess  anything  more  than  secondary  importance. 

The  remaining  ancient  versions  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment have  too  little  critical  weight  to  call  for  detailed 
remark.  We  simply  note  their  supposed  dates  as 
follows, — Georgian  Version  (sixth  century) :  Arabic  Ver- 
sions (most  ancient,  eighth  century)  :  Slavonic  Version 
(ninth  century) :  Anglo-Saxon  versions  (from  the  Latin, 
eighth  to  eleventh  century) :  Persic  Versions  (from  the 
Syriac  and  Greek,  fourteenth  century).  Other  versions, 
like  the  English,  thougli  possessing  great  merit  as 
translations,  and  though  derived  immediately  from  the 
Greek,  are  by  far  too  modern  to  possess  any  authority 
in  the  settlement  of  the  original  text. 


CHAPTEE  V. 

QUOTATIONS  FROM  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT   BY 
ANCIENT  WEITERS. 

VEEY  copious  Cliristiaii  literature  has  de- 
scended to  us  from  the  early  centuries  of  our 
era ;  and  nothing  is  more  characteristic  of 
that  literature  than  the  frequency  and  ful- 
ness with  which  passages  of  the  Sacred  Scriptures  are 
cited.  It  has  been  said  with  truth  that,  had  the  ISTew 
Testament  as  a  volume  perished,  the  substance  of  it 
could  easily  have  been  recovered  from  the  quotations 
which  lie  imbedded  in  the  writings  of  authors  who  lived 
before  the  date  of  the  Mcene  or  first  General  Council, 
in  A.D.  325. 

The  evidence  as  to  the  original  text  of  Scripture 
which  may  thus  be  collected  from  the  extant  works  of 
the  first  Christian  Fathers  is,  so  far  as  it  goes,  more 
ancient  than  can  be  derived  from  either  manuscripts  or 
versions.  Our  most  venerable  manuscripts  of  the  New 
Testament  cannot,  as  we  have  seen,  be  dated  farther 
back  than  the  fourth  century,  while  the  earliest  versions 
are  to  be  ascribed  probably  to  the  middle  of  the  second. 


Quotations  from  the  Boohs  of  the  Neio  Testament.    61 

But  in  tliose  writers  who  are  known  as  the  "  Apostolic 
Fathers,"  we  possess  witnesses  to  the  text  of  the  New 
Testament  (so  far  as  they  can  be  shown  to  quote  it)  at 
a  period  which  borders  upon,  if  it  does  not  even  touch, 
the  apostolic  age  itself. 

There  are,  however,  several  considerations  which  de- 
tract seriously  from  the  value  which  might  thus  at  first 
seem  to  belong  to  patristic  citations  in  the  determina- 
tion of  the  primitive  text  of  the  New  Testament.  The 
chief  of  these  may  be  briefly  stated  as  follows.-^ 

The  text  of  such  early  writers  is  itself  not  unfre- 
quently  doubtful.  Those  manuscripts  of  their  w^orks 
which  have  come  down  to  us  are  of  a  comparatively 
modern  date.  Few  of  them  reach  higher  than  the  tenth 
century;  and  in  some  cases  not  more  than  a  single 
copy  of  a  particular  author  is  known  to  exist.  We  are 
thus  at  times  very  uncertain  as  to  the  genuine  readings 
of  the  original ;  and  there  is  not  unfrequently  cause  to 
suspect  that,  in  the  course  of  ages,  the  text  has  suffered 
from  changes,  intentional  or  unintentional,  introduced 
by  transcribers. 

Again,  as  v/as  natural,  ere  the  written  word  assumed 
that  paramount  importance  which  was  by  and  by  re- 
cognised as  of  right  belonging  to  it,  the  quotations  made 
from  tlie  New  Testament  by  the  early  Christian  writers 
are  often  far  from  verbally  accurate.  At  times  some  of 
them  seem  to  be  mingled  with  the  oral  form  in  which 

1  This  part  of  the  subject  will  be  found  more  fully  noticed  when  the 
comparative  value  of  quotations  as  testimonies  to  the  text  is  spoken 
of  in  Part  Second,  Chap.  II. 


62  Quotations  from  the  Books  of  the 

they  had  been  transmitted.  They  are  often  given  in  a 
loose  and  confused  way  just  as  memory  suggested,  or 
have  a  special  turn  assigned  them  according  as  the 
argument  of  the  writer  for  the  moment  required.  It 
must  he  remembered  in  regard  to  this  whole  subject, 
that  these  ancient  authors  had  no  such  facilities  of 
reference  as  are  furnished  by  our  modern  Bibles  divided 
into  chapters  and  verses.  To  verify  a  quotation  would, 
in  their  case,  often  have  implied  lengthened  search  and 
irksome  labour.  Tliey  were  thus  very  strongly  tempted 
to  trust  for  the  most  part  to  their  general  knowledge  of 
Scripture  in  making  their  citations. 

■  Moreover,  in  multitudes  of  cases,  slight  verbal  changes 
would  become  current  in  familiar  quotations  of  the  New 
Testament,  without  giving  rise  to  the  slightest  suspicion 
of  their  being  erroneous.  The  way  in  which  our  own 
English  Bible  is  often  misquoted  might  supply  us  with 
many  an  illustration.  Perhaps  there  are  few  preachers, 
though  familiar  during  a  long  course  of  years  with  that 
book,  but  have  fallen  into  the  habit  of  less  or  more 
altering,  adding  to,  or.  deducting  from,  particular  texts 
in  their  citations.  In  such  a  passage  as,  "  If  we  confess 
our  sins,  He  is  faithful  and  just  to  forgive  us  our 
sins,  and  to  cleanse  us  from  all  unrighteousness,"  one  may 
be  in  the  habit  of  substituting  iniquity  for  unrighteous- 
ness, and  never  dream  that  he  is  in  error.  All  are  fami- 
liar with  the  addition  so  commonly  made  to  our  Lord's 
promise — "  Where  two  or  three  are  gathered  together  in 
my  name,  there  am  I  in  the  midst  of  them" — when,  as 
its  fulfilment  is  pleaded  for  in  prayer,  the  words  are 


Neiv  Testament  hy  Ancient  Writers.  63 

appended  "  to  bless  us  and  to  do  us  good."  Nothing  is 
more  common  than  to  hear  the  declaration  quoted, 
"  The  blood  of  Jesus  Christ  cleanseth  from  all  sin," 
instead  of  the  "  cleanseth  ws"  of  the  original ;  and  every 
one  must  have  heard  2  Tim.  i.  12  quoted  as,  "  I  know 
in  luhom  I  have  believed,"  &c.,  although  the  passage 
really  stands  thus — "  I  know  wliom  I  have  believed,  and 
am  persuaded  that  He  is  able  to  keep  that  which  I  have 
committed  to  Him  against  that  day." 

For  various  reasons,  then,  there  is  good  ground  for 
acquiescing  in  the  judgment  of  Dr.  Scrivener  on  the 
point  in  question,  when  he  says  :  "  On  the  whole,  scrip- 
tural quotations  from  ecclesiastical  writers  are  of  so 
much  less  consideration  than  ancient  translations,  that 
where  they  are  single  and  unsupported  they  may  safely 
be  disregarded  altogether.  An  exiprcss  citation,  however, 
by  a  really  careful  Father  of  the  first  four  or  five  cen- 
turies (as  Origen  for  example),  if  supported  by  manu- 
script authority,  and  countenanced  by  the  best  versions, 
claims  our  respectful  attention,  and  powerfully  vindicates 
the  reading  which  it  favours."  ^ 

It  may  be  interesting  and  useful  if  we  subjoin  a  list 
of  the  principal  writers  whose  works  are  available  for 
the  textual  criticism  of  the  New  Testament,  with  the 
approximate  dates  at  which  they  composed  their  writ- 
ings, and  the  names  of  their  most  important  works  still 
extant. 

Clement  of  Rome. — He  wrote  an  epistle  to  the  Corin- 
thians about  A.D.  97.     This  epistle  has  come  down  to 

^  Introduction  to  the  Criticism  of  the  New  Testament,  p.  284. 


64  Quotations  from  the  Books  of  the 

us  in  a  single  manuscript  only.  It  is  contained  in  the 
Alexandrian  manuscript  of  the  New  Testament. 

Ignatius  of  Antioch. — He  is  supposed  to  have  written 
a  number  of  short  epistles  in  a.d.  107. 

Barnahas. — An  epistle  of  very  early  date  bears  the 
name  of  Barnabas.  It  was  probably  written  about 
A.D.  130. 

Bolycarp  of  Sm.yrna. — He  wrote  a  short  epistle,  still 
extant,  about  ad.  150. 

Justin  Martyr. — Justin  wrote  two  ''  Apologies"  for 
the  Christians,  which  were  severally  addressed  to  the 
emperors  Antoninus  Pius  and  Aurelius.  He  also  wrote 
a  "  Dialogue  with  Trypho  a  Jew."  Some  other  writings 
are  doubtfully  ascribed  to  him.     a.d.  150. 

Tatian. — He  wrote  a  number  of  works,  but  only  one, 
his  "Discourse  to  the  Greeks,"  is  extant.     A.D.  166. 

Athenagoras. — This  elegant  writer  has  left  us  two 
short  works — an  "Apology,"  and  a  "Treatise  on  the 
Eesurrection."     a.d.  170. 

Iren^us. — One  of  the  most  important  works  of  Chris- 
tian antiquity  is  the  long  treatise  of  Irenseus,  "  Against 
Heresies."     a.d.  189. 

Clement  of  Alexandria. — His  chief  works  extant  are, 
"  Hortatory  Address  to  the  Greeks,"  the  "  Teacher," 
and  the  "  Miscellanies."     a.d.  200. 

Tertullian. — A  very  voluminous  author.  His  prin- 
cipal works  extant  are  an  "  Apology,"  and  a  treatise 
"  Against  Marcion."  He  quotes  from  the  Old  Latin. 
A.D.  210. 

Hippolytus. — Only  fragments  of  his  works  are  extant: 


New  Testament  hy  Ancient  Writers.  65 

the  most  important  is  liis  "  Eefutation  of  all  Heresies." 
A.D.  230. 

Origen. — By  far  the  most  learned  of  the  Ante-Mcene 
Fathers.  Many  works  from  his  pen,  in  whole  or  in  part, 
still  exist,  and  are  very  valuable  for  the  purposes  of 
textual  criticism.  We  may  name  his  "  Homilies," 
"  Commentaries/'  and  treatise  "  Against  Celsus."  A.D. 
240. 

Gregory  Tliaiimaturgiis. — His  "  Panegyric  on  Origen," 
"Paraphrase  of  Ecclesiastes,"  and  some  other  short 
works,  have  come  down  to  us.     a.d.  250. 

Cypeian. — A  very  important  writer.  His  extant 
works  are  his  "Epistles"  and  "Treatises" — all  most 
valuable  for  the  light  they  shed  on  early  ecclesiastical 
history,  as  well  as  for  the  aid  they  give  in  textual 
criticism,     a.d.  252. 

Methodius. — He  wrote  a  large  work  "Against  Por- 
phyry," now  lost.  We  still  possess  his  "  Feast  of  the 
Ten  Virgins,"  and  some  other  remains.     A.D.  260. 

Arnohiv.s. — His  treatise  "Against  the  Gentiles"  has 
come  down  to  us.     a.d.  300. 

Ladantius — "  The  Christian  Cicero."  His  principal 
extant  work  is  the  "Divine  Institutions."     a.d.  310. 

EuSEBius  OF  C^SAEEA — "  The  Father  of  ecclesiastical 
history."  Besides  his  "  History,"  several  works  of  his 
still  exist.     A.D.  330.  • 

Athanasius. — The   famous   opponent   of    Arianism. 

His  works  consist  of  treatises,  letters,  and  speeches. 

A.D.  370. 

Ujphraem  Syrus. — Syrian  theologian  and  hymnologist. 
E 


66      Quotations  from  the  Books  of  the  New  Testament. 

His  works,  consisting  of  homilies,  commentaries,  &c., 
are  specially  useful  in  the  criticism  of  the  Syriac  ver- 
sions.    A.D.  370. 

Epiphanius  of  Cyprus. — His  chief  works  are  "Against 
Heresies,"  and  a  treatise  expounding  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity,     a.d.  400. 

Chrysostom  of  Antioch. — By  far  the  most  eloquent 
of  the  Fathers.  His  works  consist  of  sermons,  commen- 
taries, letters,  and  treatises.     A.D.  405. 

Jeeome,  or  HiERONYMUS. — A  very  learned  writer. 
His  extant  works  consist  of  commentaries,  epistles,  and 
treatises.     A.D.  410. 

Augustine. — The  best  known  of  all  the  Fathers.  His 
extant  works  are  very  numerous.  We  may  name  his 
"Confessions,"  ''City  of  God,"  " Eetractations,"  Com- 
mentary on  the  Psalms,  and  treatises  on  the  Pelagian 
controversy.     A.D.  420. 

It  is  hardly  worth  while,  for  our  present  purpose,  to 
name  any  later  writers. 


CHAPTEE  VI. 

SKETCH  OF  THE  HISTORY  OF  MODERN  BIBLICAL  CRITICISM. 

|HEEE  are  few  epochs  in  the  history  of  the 
world  more  memorable  than  that  which 
marks  the  printing  and  publishing  of  the 
first  Greek  New  Testament.  As  long  as  the 
Word  of  God  was  confined  to  manuscripts,  it  could  come 
into  the  hands  only  of  a  few,  and  might  be  explained 
very  much  as  traditional  prejudice  had  fixed.  Very 
profound  was  the  ignorance  of  the  Scriptures  which  per- 
vaded all  ranks  previous  to  the  great  intellectual  and 
spiritual  revolution  which  took  place  about  the  beginning 
of  the  sixteenth  century.  Many  of  the  clergy  had  never 
seen  a  copy  of  the  whole  Bible  ;  and  the  great  majority 
of  them  could  not  read  a  word  of  the  original  languages. 
The  extracts  which  were  read  in  the  Breviary  day  by 
day  were  generally  regarded  by  the  priests  as  constitut- 
ing the  entire  Word  of  God ;  and  even  these  were,  in 
many  cases,  repeated  without  being  understood — with- 
out conveying  the  slightest  glimmering  of  Gospel-truth 
to  the  understanding,  or  producing  the  least  impression 
on  the  conscience  or  the  heart. 


68  Sketch  of  the  History  of  Modern  Biblical  Criticism. 

While  this  was  the  condition  of  the  professed 
teachers  of  the  people,  it  is  needless  to  say  how  dense 
was  the  ignorance  which  prevailed  among  the  people 
themselves.  Indeed,  when  we  glance  at  the  state  of 
Christendom  towards  the  close  of  the  Middle  Ages,  it 
seems  almost  miraculous  that  so  great  a  change  speedily 
passed  over  it.  Looking  at  Europe  for  a  century  pre- 
vious to  the  appearing  of  Luther,  we  gaze  upon  a  scene 
similar  to  that  which  the  prophet  witnessed,  when  he 
was  set  down  in  the  midst  of  the  valley  which  was  full 
of  bones,  and  when,  as  he  declares,  "  there  were  very 
many  in  the  open  valley,  and  lo  !  they  were  very  dry." 
Judging  by  mere  human  probability,  the  speedy  awaken- 
ing and  disenthralment  of  Christendom  seemed  then  as 
hopeless  as  to  the  natural  eye  must  have  appeared  the 
resuscitation  of  these  mournful  relics  of  once  living  men. 
Only  a  spirit  of  faith  living  in  the  heart  of  Ezekiel  pre- 
vented him  from  at  once  replying  in  the  negative,  when 
the  startling  question  fell  upon  his  ears  from  heaven — 
"  Son  of  man,  can  these  bones  live  ? "  And  only  a  similar 
spirit  could  have  led  any  one  about  the  close  of  the 
fourteenth  century  to  anticipate  that  marvellous  mental 
and  spiritual  awakening  which,  ere  little  more  than  a 
hundred  years  had  elapsed,  was  to  take  place  through- 
out the  whole  Christian  world. 

But  when  the  set  time  for  the  accomplishment  of 
His  purposes  has  come,  God  often  effects  great  results 
within  a  very  limited  period.  Soon  did  a  mighty 
change  pass  over  that  scene  of  desolation  and  death  on 
which  the  prophet  looked.     The  profound  stillness  was 


Sketch  of  the  History  of  Modern  Biblical  Criticism.  69 

broken;  and  sound  and  movement — the  harbingers  of 
the  great  transformation  about  to  occur — were  perceived; 
until  at  length,  in  strikincj  contrast  to  the  scene  which 
at  first  lay  before  the  view  of  the  seer,  there  started  up 
from  that  valley  of  death  a  vast  multitude  of  living 
men ;  "  the  breath,"  says  Ezekiel,  "  came  into  them, 
and  they  lived,  and  stood  up  on  their  feet,  an  exceeding 
great  army." 

Now,  such  also  appears  the  mightiness  of  the  change 
which  passed  over  the  Christian  world  within  the  period 
that  has  been  mentioned.  And  when  we  inquire  into 
the  causes  which,  under  God,  led  to  this  great  and 
blessed  revolution,  we  find,  as  is  often  the  case  in  the 
accomplishment  of  Heaven's  designs,  that  there  was  a 
wonderful  working  together  of  various  agencies  and 
means  in  order  to  give  rise  to  the  desired  result.  Chief 
of  all,  we  note  the  invention  of  the  art  of  printing, 
and  then,  as  a  necessary  effect  of  this,  the  publication  of 
the  great  literary  treasures  which  had  descended  from 
antiquity.  It  was  impossible  that  these  works  could  be 
sent  forth  to  the  world,  without  rousing  the  human 
mind  from  that  state  of  stagnation  in  which  it  had  so 
long  been  sunk.  But  while  the  dissemination  of  the 
classical  remains  of  antiquity  would,  of  itself,  have 
given  birth  to  a  mental  activity  which  must  have  been, 
in  a  large  degree,  fatal  to  the  claims  of  superstition,  and 
must  have  led  many  to.  throw  off  those  intellectual 
fetters  in  which  the  human  soul  had  so  long  been  bound, 
something  more  was  needed  to  initiate  that  great 
revival  of  spiritual  life  which  is  the  most  characteristic 


70  Sketch  of  the  History  of  Modern  Biblical  Criticism. 

feature  of  the  Eeformation.  The  heathen  writers  might 
be  sufficient  to  destroy,  but  it  required  the  sacred  writers 
to  construct.  Superstition  might  fall,  yet  Christianity, 
in  its  apostolic  form,  might  not  be  established.  A 
blank  scepticism  might  take  the  place  of  a  long-dominant 
credulity.  The  fear  of  Erasmus  that,  "  with  the  study 
of  ancient  literature,  ancient  paganism  would  reappear," 
might  be  realized ;  and,  as  has  happened  in  other  cases, 
men  might  then  rush  from  the  slavish  acceptance  of 
grovelling  superstitions  to  a  bold  and  impious  denial  of 
the  most  certain  and  sacred  scriptural  truths. 

From  this  danger  Christendom  was  saved,  as  it  only 
could  be  saved,  by  the  general  circulation  of  the  inspired 
Word  of  God.  Without  this  the  Eeformation,  in  its 
best  and  highest  sense,  would  have  been  impossible. 
The  Scriptures  alone  could  form  a  foundation  on  which 
the  fabric  of  primitive  Christianity  might  anew  be 
raised ;  and  hence  there  attaches  the  deepest  interest  to 
the  printing  and  publishing  of  the  first  Greek  I^ew 
Testament — the  issue  through  the  press  of  that  precious 
volume  which  was  to  bear  fresh  life  and  peace,  instruc- 
tion and  salvation,  to  the  world. 

The  first  portions  of  the  Greek  Testament  ever 
printed  were  the  songs  of  the  Virgin  Mary  and 
Zacharias,  from  the  opening  chapter  of  St.  Luke's 
Gospel.  These  were  appended  to  a  Greek  edition  of 
the  Psalms  which  appeared  at  Venice  in  the  year  1486. 
A  considerable  period  elapsed  before  any  attempt  was 
made  to  print  and  publish  the  whole  New  Testament. 
It  was  not  till  1,516 — a  year  so  memorable  on  other 


Sketch  of  the  History  of  Modern  Biblical  Criticism.   71 

accounts — that  Erasmus  gave  his  first  edition  to  the 
world,  and  thus  did  more  to  facilitate  the  triumph  of 
Luther  in  his  arduous  struggle  than  could,  in  any  other 
way,  have  been  accomplished.  ^ 

Although,  however,  the  New  Testament  of  Erasmus 
was  the  first  one  actually  published,  there  was  another 
printed,  some  few  years  previously,  under  strictly  Eomish 
influences.  It  is  somewhat  remarkable  that  Spain,  so 
intolerant  until  recent  years  of  the  free  circulation 
of  the  Bible,  has  the  honour  of  being  the  country  in 
which  an  edition  of  the  Sacred  Scriptures  was  first 
printed.  About  the  beginning  of  the  sixteenth  century, 
the  able  and  accomplished  Cardinal  Ximenes  began 
to  prepare  a  Polyglott  Bible ;  and  the  work  was  finished, 
so  far  as  regards  the  printing  of  the  New  Testament, 
before  Erasmus  had  even  begun  to  make  any  prepara- 
tions for  his  edition.  Some  years,  however,  were  allowed 
to  pass  before  this  great  work  of  Ximenes  was  authorized 
to  be  published.  It  is  known  as  the  Complutensian' 
edition,  from  the  place  at  which  it  appeared — Com- 
plutum  being  the  Latin  name  of  Alcala  in  Spain.  There 
are  now  hardly  any  means  of  ascertaining  wliat  were 
the  manuscripts  used  in  the  preparation  of  this  New 
Testament.  They  seem  to  have  been  of  no  great  value, 
for  its  readings  rarely  agree,  in  controverted  passages, 
with  those  of  the  most  ancient  authorities  formerly  de- 
scribed. Moreover,  it  has  been  strongly  contended  by 
some,  though  as  stoutly  denied  by  others,  that  the 
Complutensian  editors  allowed  an  undue  influence  in 
their  work  to  the  Latin  Vulgate,  which  has  always  been 


72  Sketch  of  the  History  of  Modern  Biblical  Criticism. 

so  higlily  esteemed  by  tlie  Cliurcli  of  Eome.  Some 
countenance,  certainly,  seems  to  "be  given  to  this 
suspicion,  by  a  curious  remark  and  comparison  wliicb 
they  make  in  their  preface  to  the  Old  Testament.  Their 
plan  was  to  print  the  Latin  in  the  central  column  as  the 
place  of  honour,  and  to  surround  it  on  either  side  by  the 
Septuagint  Greek  and  the  original  Hebrew,  ,  Eeferring 
to  this,  they  compare  the  Vulgate  to  Christ  crucified  he- 
tween  the  tioo  thieves  Q) — the  one, thief  being  the  Greek 
Church,  which  was  denounced  as  being  heretical,  and  the 
other  thief  being  the  nation  of  the  Jews,  whom  they 
accused  of  having  corrupted  the  Hebrew  as  often  as 
it  differed  from  the  Latin. 

The  Complutensian  text,  although  the  first  ever 
printed,  has  had  but  small  influence  on  subsequent 
editions  of  the  New  Testament.  It  possesses  therefore 
comparatively  little  interest  at  the  present  day,  and  will 
probably  never  again  be  reprinted. 

Very  different  has  it  proved  wdth  the  edition  published 
by  Erasmus.  That  has  been  the  basis  of  all  the  ordinary 
editions  of  the  Scriptures  which  have  since  been 
published,  from  generation  to  generation.  From  it  has 
heen  derived  in  substance  our  own  Authorized  English 
Testament.  It  is,  therefore,  a  point  of  the  deepest 
interest  to  us  to  ascertain  on  what  critical  authority  th,e 
edition  of  Erasmus  rests.  And  on  investigating  this 
matter,  we  are  led  both  to  acknowledge  the  gracious 
working  of  Divine  Providence  in  the  past,  and  to  see 
what  is  our  own  manifest  duty  at  the  present  day. 
When  we  remember  that  our  Authorized  Version  was 


Sketch  of  the  History  of  Modem  Biblical  Criticism.   73 

formed  more  than  250  years  ago,  and  that  then  not  one 
of  those  ancient  and  precious  manuscripts  which  have 
been  described  was  available  for  the  purposes  of 
criticism,  we  might  well  entertain  the  fear  lest  the 
Bible  known  to  us  from  infancy  should  prove  to  be 
seriously  misleading,  as  having  been  formed  from  a  very 
erroneous  text.  And  when  we  ask  what  luere  the 
manuscripts  which  Erasmus  employed  at  first,  and  what 
those  were  which  the  editors  immediately  following  him 
tised,  till  what  is  known  as  the  "  Eeceived  Text "  was 
produced,  we  find  that  our  apprehensions  seem  to  have 
but  too  good  foundation.  It  was  not  for  long^that  the  o 
ample  materials  which  we  now  possess  for  fixing 
accurately  the  true  readings  of  Scripture  came  into  the 
hands  of  Biblical  scholars.  Erasmus,  and  his  followers! 
for  a  century,  had  but  a  few  modern  manuscripts  which 
they  could  consult  in  preparing  their  editions  of  the 
New  Testament.  They  were  such  as  happened  to  be 
within  their  reach;  and  these  were  of  a  character  on 
which  no  great  reliance  could  be  placed.  To  show  how 
meagre  were  the  resources  of  Erasmus,  it  may  be 
mentioned  that  he  had  only  a  single  manuscript  of  the 
Apocalypse,  and  that  even  the  one  which  he  possessed 
was  not  complete.  A  part  of  the  New  Testament 
would  thus  have  been  altoo^ether  wanting  in  his  first 
edition  had  he  not  ventured  to  supply  it  by  transla- 
tion from  the  Latin.  He  took  the  Vulgate,  and  con- 
jecturally  retranslated  it  into  Greek.  It  thus  happens 
that,  in  the  ordinary  editions  of  the  Greek  New  Testa- 
ment,   there   are   words   still   existing,    which   so   far 


74  Sketch  of  the  History  of  Modern  Biblical  Criticism. 

from  resting  on  any  manuscript  authority,  or  having 
any  claim  to  be  regarded  as  inspired,  were  plainly 
and  confessedly  inserted  in  the  text  from  mere  con- 
jecture. 

Yet,  notwithstanding  this,  and  all  the  more  on  account 
of  it,  the  common  text  of  the  Greek  New  Testament 
excites  our  deepest  wonder  and  admiration.  We  cannot 
but  regard  it  as  a  kind  of  Providential  miracle.  Although 
so  much  has  been  done  since  it  was  formed  to  throw 
light  upon  the  true  text  of  Scripture,  that  which  was  at 
first  adopted  remains,  for  almost  al]  practical  purposes, 
totally  unaffected.  God  has  never  interfered  with 
human  liberty,  yet  it  is  impossible  to  look  back  upon 
the  history  of  the  Bible,  and  especially  on  the  point  now 
under  consideration,  without  being  struck  with  the 
manner  in  which  He  has  continually  watched  over  His 
own  holy  Word.  We  may  truly  and  thankfully  say  that 
He  led  Erasmus  and  his  followers  "  in  a  way  which  they 
knew  not,"  so  as  to  secure  a  substantial  accuracy  in  those 
transcripts  of  the  New  Testament  which  they  presented 
to  the  world.  Many  have  come  after  them,  and  devoted 
their  lives  to  the  discovery  and  publication  of  sacred 
manuscripts ;  but  largely  as  the  stores  of  Biblical 
criticism  have  been  increased  since  their  day,  the  New 
Testament  remains  practically  almost  the  same  as  it  was 
in  the  first  editions.  Changes  have  indeed  been  made  : 
doubts  respecting  numerous  passages  have  been  started : 
fluctuations  have  taken  place  in  the  opinions  of  scholars 
as  to  the  true  reading  in  a  few  important  texts ;  but,  upon 
the  whole,  criticism,  even  in  its  most  rigorous  exercise,  has 


Sketch  of  the  History  of  Modern  Biblical  Criticisvi.  75 

not  demanded  any  great  or  material  alterations  in  the 
text. 

This  is  a  very  comforting  and  satisfactory  thought  to 
all  the  friends  of  Scripture,  yet  it  is  surely  not  one  which 
should  lead  them  to  undervalue  the  labours  of  those 
who  devote  their  time  and  strength  to  critical  pursuits. 
The  object  of  such  students  is  to  discover  and  present 
to  the  Christian  world,  in  as  pure  a  form  as  possible, 
that  message  which  our  Heavenly  Father  has  addressed 
to  His  children  upon  earth.  The  more  loyal  and  loving 
our  hearts  are  towards  Him,  the  more  will  we  feel  it  our 
incumbent  duty  to  encourage,  in  every  way  we  can,  those 
scholarly  studies  which  have  for  their  end  the  noble 
purpose  of  freeing  the  Scriptures  from  every  taint  of 
error  that  may,  through  human  iufirmity,  have  crept  into 
their  text,  and  restoring  that  text  to  the  form  which 
it  exhibited  in  the  autographs  of  the  sacred  writers. 

Let  it  be  remembered  also,  that  to  such  investigations 
is  due  the  confidence  which  we  may  justly  place  in  our 
Bibles,  as  they  have  been  familiar  to  us  all  our  days ; 
and  that,  however  little  the  labours  of  sacred  critics  may 
be  heard  of  by  the  Christian  world  at  large,  yet  it  is  to 
these  that  the  faith  and  comfort  of  all  believers  are  to 
be  ascribed.  By  these  there  is  a  wall  of  defence  drawn 
around  the  Bible  of  the  humblest  worshipper.  By  these 
the  enemies  of  divine  truth  are  prevented  from  makiug 
that  assault  upon  the  hopes  of  the  Christian  community, 
which  they  would  not  defer  for  a  moment  had  they  the 
least  chance  of  being  successful.  By  the  labour  of  some 
scholar  whose  name  perhaps  few  have  ever  heard — who 


76  Sketch  of  the  History  of  Modern  Biblical  Criticism. 

sits  buried  among  books  and  manuscripts  which  most 
men  would  think  repellent  and  unedifying,.  and  whose 
life  is  spent  in  pursuits  which  many  in  their  haste  might 
stigmatize  as  useless — by  his  labours,  Christians  in 
general  are  protected  from  the  assertion  or  insinuation 
that  the  passage  of  Scripture  which  may  have  cheered 
their  hearts  has  no  valid  claim  to  be  regarded  as  the 
Word  of  God.  Honour  then  to  those  who  are  wearing 
health  and  strength  away  in  the  noble  work  of  ascer- 
taining and  elucidating  the  true  text  of  Scripture!  As 
much  as  the  missionary  who  leaves  home  and  kindred 
to  bear  the  glad  tidings  of  salvation  to  the  heathen :  as 
truly  as  the  martyr  who  seals  with  his  blood  the  testi- 
mony he  has  borne  for  Christ — are  these  men  doing  the 
the  work  of  God,  and  earning  the  reward  which  will  at 
last  be  given  to  all  His  good  and  faithful  servants.  But 
for  them,  the  message  which  the  missionary  bears  might 
be  scoffed  at  as  a  fable;  but  for  them,  the  faith  for 
which  the  martyr  dies  might  be  ridiculed  as  a  delu- 
sion; but  for  them,  the  Gospel  which  the  minister 
preaches  might  be  laughed  at  as  the  offspring  of  human 
credulity  or  imposture ;  and  therefore  to  them  be  given 
that  honour  which  is  their  due,  and  let  those  services  be 
acknowledged  and  appreciated  which  are  rendered  by 
them,  not  to  a  sect,  a  church,  or  a  nation  merely,  but  to 
mankind  at  large,  and  by  which  not  only  the  present, 
but  all  future  ages,  are  laid  under  most  deep  and  true 
and  lasting  obligations. 

On  looking  back  upon  the  history  of  sacred  criticism 


Sketch  of  the  History  of  Modern  Biblical  Criticism.  77 

'  since  the  days  of  Erasmus,  it  is  pleasing  to  discover  that 
some  of  the  very  first  and  most  eminent  men  who 
devoted  themselves  to  such  studies  belonged  to  our  own 
country.  After  Beza's  editions  of  the  New  Testament, 
which  appeared  towards  the  close  of  the  sixteenth  cen- 
tury, little  was  done  in  textual  criticism  till  the  publica- 
tion of  Walton's  Polyglott  in  the  year  1657.  This  great 
work  contained  a  collection  of  various  readings  from 
numerous  important  manuscripts,  though  it  still  adhered 
to  that  text  which  had  now  acquired  a  kind  of  prescrip- 
tive right,  and  which,  in  the  opinion  of  many,  it  was 
sacrilegious  to  touch.  Ignorance  is  often  as  irritable 
as  it  is  clamorous ;  and  learning  must,  not  unfre- 
quently,  sustain  a  severe  conflict  before  its  conclusions 
are  accepted.  Thus  it  proved  in  the  case  now  before  us. 
If  there  is  any  duty  plainly  incumbent  on  Christians,  it 
is  surely  to  see  that  they  possess  the  Word  of  God  in  as 
pure  a  form  as  Providence  has  placed  within  their  power. 
And  when  new  manuscripts  were  brought  to  light,  of  a 
far  higher  value  than  those  which  had  been  used  in  the 
first  printed  editions  of  the  IS'ew  Testament,  it  might 
have  been  expected  that  some  gratitude  would  be  dis- 
played to  those  scholars  who  had  discovered  them,  and 
who  sought  by  their  aid  to  present  to  the  Christian 
world  a  closer  approximation  to  the  genuine  text  of 
Scripture.  But  as  has  happened  in  many  similar  cases, 
and  as  will  doubtless  happen  again,  very  different  was 
the  result.  Men  allowed  their  own  notions  of  expe- 
diency to  outweigh  all  considerations  of  truth  and  duty. 
The  established  text  with  all  its  corruptions  was  clung 


78  Sketch  of  the  History  of  Modern  Biblical  Criticism. 

to,  in  preference  to  that  wliicli  had  so  greatly  superior 
claims  to  acceptance ;  and  those  scholars  who  ventured 
to  call  attention  to  the  various  readings  furnished  by 
newly-discovered  manuscripts,  instead  of  being  thanked 
for  their  pains,  were  (as  we  formerly  saw)  branded 
as  the  enemies  of  revelation,  future  ages,  however, 
have  acknowledged  the  value  of  those  labours  which 
were  at  first  so  much  decried;  and  the  names  of 
Walton,  Mill,  and  Bentley  will  ever  be  names  of 
which  England  will  be  proud  in  connection  with  the 
pursuit  of  sacred  learning  and  the  advancement  of 
textual  criticism. 

After  this  period,  the  glory  of  devotedness  to  Biblical 
science  passed  away  from  Britain,  and  rested  on  a 
country  to  which  the  whole  Christian  world  is  now  under 
the  deepest  obligation.  However  much  we  may  deplore 
some  of  the  phases  which  both  faith  and  unbelief  have 
assumed  in  Germany,  it  is  but  fair  that  we  should  also 
acknowledge  the  incalculable  service  which  German 
scholarship  has  rendered  to  the  cause  of  divine  truth. 
In  regard,  more  especially,  to  the  text  of  Scripture,  the 
names  of  Beugel  and  Griesbach  need  only  to  be  men- 
tioned in  order  to  suggest  how  much  we  owe  to  the 
former  labours  of  Continental  critics.  Nor  have  German 
scholars  ceased  to  toil  in  our  behalf  at  the  present  day. 
Not  to  weary  the  reader  with  a  long  list  of  names,  we  may 
simply  mention  that  of  Tischendorf,  who  has  had  the  hon- 
our of  finding  more  manuscripts  of  the  New  Testament 
than  any  other  labourer  in  this  field,  and  whose  previous 
discoveries  have  (as  formerly  described)  all  been  sur- 


Sketch  of  the  History  of  Modern  Biblical  Criticism.  79 

passed  and  crowned  by  his  bringing  to  light  a  manu- 
script which  carries  ns  back  at  least  to  the  days  of 
Augustine  and  Jerome,  and  whose  worth  it  is  scarcely 
possible  to  overestimate. 

It  is  gratifying  to  be  able  to  add  that  our  own  country 
has  recently  been  reoccupying  the  honourable  position 
which  she  formerly  held  in  the  department  of  textual 
criticism.  No  labourers  in  this  field  have  ever  surpassed 
Dr.  Tregelles  and  Dr.  Scrivener  in  the  zeal,  diligence, 
and  painstaking  accuracy  with  which  they  have  devoted 
their  lives  to  this  study.  Others  also,  like  the  late 
lamented  Dean  Alford,  have  done  much  to  give  a  stimu- 
lus to  such  pursuits.  There  are  not  a  few  cheering  evi- 
dences that  a  taste  for  the  study  of  textual  criticism  is 
reviving  in  our  country ;  and  if  this  taste  is  duly  fostered 
and  properly  directed,  we  may  augur  from  it  the  happiest 
results. 

The  New  Testament  llevision  Company,  now  sitting 
periodically  at  Westminster,  of  necessity  give  their 
most  careful  attention  to  the  settlement  of  the  true  text. 
This  is  the  very  first  duty  which  they  have  to  discharge. 
It  would  be  vain  to  make  an  improved  translation,  how- 
ever excellent,  if  that  were  founded  on  a  corrupt  or 
uncertain  text.  The  primary  aim  therefore  of  the  Com- 
pany is,  by  the  most  patient,  and  even  anxious,  weighing 
of  all  available  evidence,  to  make  as  near  an  approach 
to  certainty  as  can  be  made  with  respect  to  the  genuine 
text  of  the  New  Testament.  If  English  readers  of  the 
new  version  feel  startled  at  first  by  finding  words  or 
clauses  omitted  to  which  they  have  been  long  accustomed, 


80  ShetcJi  of  the  History  of  Modem  Biblical  Criticism. 

and  changes  of  translation  introduced  owing  to  a  change 
of  reading  which  has  been  adopted  in  the  Greek,  they 
may  rest  assured  that  not  a  single  alteration  has  been 
adopted  without  the  most  serious  deliberation,  or  from 
any  other  motive  than  the  earnest  desire  of  making  the 
nearest  possible  approach  to  the  primitive  form  of  that 
inspired  Word  which  God  has  given  us  to  be  "  a  lamp 
unto  our  feet,  and  a  light  unto  our  path." 


PART  SECOND. 

MODE  OF  DEALING  WITH  THE  FACTS. 


PART  SECOND. 

MODE  OF  DEALING  WITH  THE  EACTS. 


CHAPTER  I. 


INTRODUCTORY. 


HE  facts  of  the  case  are  now  before  us,  and 
we  are  next  met  by  the  inquiry,  What  are 
we  to  do  with  them  ?  What  are  the  principles 
that  are  to  guide  us  in  selecting  from  the 
great  mass  of  various  readings  in  existence  those  which 
we  may  have  best  reason  to  suppose  were  the  original 
words  of  the  inspired  penmen  ? 

It  is  too  generally  imagined  that  we  have  no  prin- 
ciples at  all.  Even  intelligent  persons  are  frequently 
under  the  impression  that  the  science  of  textual  criti- 
cism is  a  mere  collection  of  undigested  facts,  that  the 
textual  critic  has  no  fixed  laws  to  regulate  his  procedure, 
that  he  works  at  random,  and  that  the  text  eventually 
constructed  by  him  is  the  result  of  arbitrary  hypothesis 
or  unregulated  caprice.  It  will  be  our  effort  to  show 
that  this  is  not  the  case  ;  and  that,  whatever  uncertainty 
may  still  rest  upon  some  parts  of  our  subject,  enough  is 


84  Introductory. 

known  to  make  it  strictly  a  science.  We  shall  en- 
deavour so  to  look  at  the  task  we  have  in  hand  as 
gradually  to  draw  a  line  with  ever-increasing  closeness 
around  the  correct  readings  of  which  we  are  in  search. 

It  has  been  already  stated  that  there  are  three  sources 
from  which  these  readings  are  to  be  derived,  manuscripts, 
versions,  and  citations  from  Scripture  in  the  writings  of 
the  early  Fathers  of  the  Church.  Had  we  reason  to 
believe  that  all  these  authorities  ^vere  of  equal  value 
our  course  would  be  a  simple  one.  Looking  at  them  as 
so  many  witnesses,  each  entitled  to  the  same  degree  of 
credit,  we  should  simply  reckon  up  the  number  upon 
opposing  sides  of  the  point  at  issue,  and  pronounce  our 
verdict  according  to  the  numerical  majority.  Such  a 
state  of  things,  however,  is  never  exhibited  in  a  court  of 
justice.  The  value  of  evidence  there  given  by  different 
witnesses  very  materially  differs.  Some  have  had  better 
opportunities  of  observation  than  others.  Some  have 
made  a  better  use  of  opportunities  in  themselves  equally 
good.  One  is  better  able  than  another  to  give  his  evi- 
dence in  a  clear,  distinct,  and  intelligible  manner.  The 
statements  made  by  one  accord  better  than  those  made 
by  others  with  circumstances  already  known  to  us.  All 
these  things  affect  the  value  of  evidence.  It  is  the  duty 
of  a  judge"  to  attend  to  them,  and  he  may  often  have  to 
decide  the  case  before  him  by  the  evidence  of  the  few 
instead  of  the  many.  Hence  tlie  legal  maxim,  than 
which  there  is  none  more  thoroughly  established,  that 
testimonies  are  to  be  weighed,  not  numbered. 

The   same   princi]3le   comes   into    operation   in    the 


Introductory.  85 

inquiry  with  which  we  are  engaged.  One  of  the  first 
things  that  strikes  the  student  of  the  text  of  the  New 
Testament  is  the  degree  to  which  the  many  witnesses 
that  have  something  to  say  regarding  it  differ  from  one 
another  in  the  points  now  mentioned.  They  have  not 
had  the  same  opportunities  of  observation,  for  one 
belongs  to  a  period  much  nearer  that  at  which  the 
Apostles  wrote  than  another ;  and  this,  though,  when 
taken  by  itself,  by  no  means  conclusive  as  to  the  higher 
value  of  his  evidence,  is  yet  at  first  sight  something  in 
its  favour.  They  have  not  made  the  same  use  of  oppor- 
tunities equally  good ;  for  one  of  two  who  lived  in  the 
same  acje  mav  have  obtained  his  information  from  sources 
manifestly  inferior  to  those  that  were  employed  by  his 
contemporary.  The  same  pains  have  not  been  taken  by 
them  to  ascertain  the  facts ;  for  one  may  show  that  he 
has  yielded  without  further  inquiry  to  a  first  impression, 
while  another  has  looked  into  the  matter,  viewed  it 
from  different  sides,  argued  it  with  himself,  and  made 
up  his  mind  after  careful  and  anxious  deliberation. 
Finally,  they  may  not  give  evidence  with  the  same  direct 
bearing  on  the  point  at  issue ;  for  one  may  speak  to  us 
in  the  original  language  of  the  New  Testament,  another 
throusjh  the  more  uncertain  medium  of  a  translation. 
It  is  clear  then  that  merely  to  number  our  witnesses 
will  not  do.  We  must  distinguish  between  their 
separate  values.     We  must  arrange  and  classify  them. 

Before  proceeding  further  it  may  be  well  to  illustrate 
what  has  now  been  said  by  an  example.  We  take  two 
interesting  various  readings  in  the  first  few  verses  of 


86  Introductory. 

tlie  sixth  chapter  of  the  Gospel  of  St.  Matthew.  In  our 
English  version  of  the  first  verse  of  that  cliapter  we 
read,  "  Take  heed  that  ye  do  not  your  alms  before  men, 
to  be  seen  of  them,"  and  again  at  the  close  of  the  fourth, 
the  sixth,  and  the  eighteenth  verses,  we  find  the  clause, 
"  And  thy  Fatlier,  which  seetli  in  secret,  shall  reward 
thee  openly."  In  all  these  cases  the  words  of  the  Eng- 
lish Bible  are  a  faithful  rendering  of  the  standard  Greek 
text.  Many  manuscripts  and  other  authorities,  how- 
ever, read  in  v.  1,  "  Take  lieed  that  ye  do  not  your 
righteousness  before  men,"  and  at  the  close  of  each  of 
the  three  other  verses  referred  to  they  omit  the  word 
"  openly."  Which  is  correct  ?  Of  which  have  we  most 
reason  to  think  that  it  gives  the  form  of  the  sentences 
as  originally  spoken  by  onr  Lord  and  written  by  the 
Evangelist  ?  Were  we  to  be  guided  by  the  number  of 
witnesses  on  either  side,  we  should  at  once  have  to 
determine  in  favour  of  the  received  text.  The  number 
giving  evidence  on  its  behalf  vastly  preponderates. 
The  number  in  favour  of  the  other  readings  is  compara- 
tively small.  Yet  it  is  conceivable  that,  if  justice  is  to 
be  done,  the  smaller  number  may  be  entitled  to  more 
consideration  than  the  larger,  and  that  the  verdict 
should  be  with  it.  In  point  of  fact  it  really  proves  to 
be  so.  All  editors  of  note  come  to  this  conclusion  ;  and 
English  readers  who  have  Alford's  New  Testament  in 
their  hands  will  see,  on  turning  up  the  passage,  that  he 
reads  without  remark  in  v.  1,  "  But  take  heed  tliat  ye 
do  not  your  righteousness  before  men,"  and  that  at  the 
close  of  verses  4  and  G  he  brackets  the  "  openly,"  while  at 


Introductory.  87 

the  end  of  v.  18  he  omits  it.  It  is  too  soon  to  explain 
the  grounds  of  this  judgment.  We  advert  to  it  only  as 
a  fact ;  but  to  confirm  its  correctness  it  may  be  said, 
that  the  force  and  meaning  of  these  verses  are  brought 
by  it  into  a  much  clearer  light.  The  word  "  alms"  in 
V.  1  confines  our  attention  to  the  first  illustration  of  the 
outward  and  hypocritical  spirit  spoken  of  by  our  Lord, 
almsf^ivinsj.  The  word  "ric^hteousness"  extends  to  all 
the  three,  almsgiving,  prayer,  and  fasting  ;  and  the  first 
verse  of  the  chapter  becomes  a  general  precept,  finding 
its  illustration  not  in  one  only  but  in  each  of  these. 
The  omission  of  the  word  "openly"  is  of  even  greater 
importance.  Its  insertion  spoils  the  whole  meaning  of 
the  passage,  leading  us  to  think  that  the  promise  of  the 
Saviour  is  that,  if  w^e  serve  God  in  secret,  that  is 
sincerely,  without  pretence  or  show,  for  His  own  sake 
and  not  for  the  sake  of  human  applause,  then  God  will 
reward  us  even  in  this  world,  in  the  very  sight  and  pre- 
sence of  those  who  gave  us  no  credit  for  piety,  who  per- 
haps condemned  us  for  the  want  of  it.  No  such  lesson 
is  intended ;  our  Saviour  designing  only  to  teach  us 
that,  however  men  may  despise  the  spirit  of  humble 
piety  and  honour  ostentation,  there  is  Another  and  a 
Higher  who  will  judge  us  justly,  even  that  Tather  in 
heaven  who  seeth  in  secret.  Men  may  condemn.  He 
will  "requite"  or  rather  "recompense"  us.  No  selfish 
thought  of  earthly  triumph  over  foes  is  thus  allowed  to 
mingle  with  our  hope  of  reward.  In  purity  and  un- 
selfishness of  spirit  we  anticipate  only  the  approbation 
of  our  Father  in  heaven. 


88  Introductory. 

These  examples  may  suffice  to  show  how  much  a  de- 
cision in  favour  of  a  minority  of  witnesses  may  after- 
wards commend  itself  to  the  spiritually  enlightened 
judgment.  If  so,  they  answer  the  end  for  which  they 
are  at  present  quoted.  They  will  confirm  to  our  minds 
the  necessity  of  such  a  classification  of  our  witnesses 
as  that  to  which  reference  has  been  made.  To  this 
classification  we  now  proceed. 


CHAPTEE  11. 

FIRST   STEP   IN  CLASSIFICATION. 

iT  has  been  said  that  the  three  classes  of 
witnesses  to  which  we  have  to  appeal  for 
the  determination  of  the  true  text  of  the 
New  Testament,  are  manuscripts  of  the 
Greek  text,  translations  into  other  languages  made  from 
that  text,  and  citations  in  the  Fathers  of  the  Church. 
We  have  first  to  make  a  comparative  estimate  of  these 
three  classes. 

Of  the  three  it  will  appear  that  we  must  look  first 
and  chiefly  to  manuscripts  of  the  Greek  text.     For, 

1.  As  to  citations  in  the  writings  of  the  Fathers, 
these  labour  in  many  respects  under  the  same  and  even 
greater  defects  than  those  that  have  to  be  contended 
with  in  the  case  of  manuscripts.  The  works  of  the 
Fathers,  like  the  Sacred  Writings  themselves,  were  com- 
posed centuries  before  the  art  of  printing  was  known. 
The  autographs  have  long  since  perished.  It  cannot  be 
doubted  that,  in  their  transcription,  all  the  liabilities  to 
error  which  affected  the  transcription  of  the  inspired 
autographs   would  not  only  exist,  but  would  exist  in 


90  First  Step  in  Classification. 

even  greater  force.  No  such  profound  reverence  was 
entertained  for  them  as  for  Scripture.  It  was  no  such 
labour  of  earnest  and  loving  zeal  to  copy  them,  with  all 
those  marks  of  interest  which  still  testify  to  the  anxiety 
manifested  by  the  copyists  of  the  Sacred  Books  to  do  their 
work  faithfully  and  well.  No  such  scruples  would  be 
felt  by  a  copyist  in  altering  the  text  that  was  beneath 
his  eye.  Nay,  there  is  every  reason  to  think  that  he 
would  often  be  tempted  by  his  very  reverence  for  Scrip- 
ture to  alter  what  he  read.  A  quotation  given  by  a 
Father,  let  us  suppose,  was  different  from  what  the  tran- 
scriber found  in  the  manuscripts  he  was  himself  accus- 
tomed to  reverence  as  divine.  How  natural  the  supposi- 
tion that  the  Father  had  quoted  wrong,  and  that  justice, 
both  to  the  Bible  and  to  him,  required  that  the  error 
should  be  corrected.  Add  to  tliis  that,  in  the  case  of  the 
Fathers,  we  possess,  with  one  or  two  exceptions,  no 
manuscripts  reacliing  so  near  the  time  when  their  books 
were  written  as  in  the  case  of  the  New  Testament,  and 
that  even  the  whole  amount  of  our  manuscripts  of  their 
writings  is  but  small,  and  it  will  be  at  once  observed 
that,  if  it  be  difficult  to  determine  the  text  of  Scripture, 
it  must  often  be  still  more  difficult  to  determine  that  of 
those  Fathers,  the  early  era  of  whose  life  renders  their 
testimony  in  this  matter  of  peculiar  value. 

This  however  is  not  all.  Even  supposing  that  we 
could  determine  exactly  what  an  early  Christian  Father 
gave  as  a  citation  from  Scripture,  the  question  would 
still  remain.  Has  Scripture  in  that  citation  been  ade- 
quately represented  ?     In  very  many  cases  it  would  be 


First  Step  in  Classification.  9 

impossible  to  affirm  this  with  confidence.  The  Fathers 
were  not  unfrequently  extremely  loose  in  their  quota- 
tions from  Scripture.  Whether  it  was  that  they  pos- 
sessed little  critical  skill  and  so  were  careless ;  or  that 
they  found  it  difficult  to  turn  up  the  passage  they  were 
quoting  in  the  rolls  which  were  then  in  use;  or  that, 
depending  largely  on  a  still  living  tradition,  they  were 
less  particular  about  written  words  than  we  are ;  what- 
ever may  have  been  the  cause — and  probably  all  the 
causes  now  mentioned  tended  more  or  less  to  the  result 
— they  were  often  satisfied  if  they  gave  the  meaning  of 
a  passage  without  seeming  to  concern  themselves 
whether  or  not  they  quoted  with  literal  exactness.  Nay, 
the  same  Father  is  found  to  quote  the  same  text  in  dif- 
ferent ways  in  different  parts  of  his  writings.  Numerous 
examples  of  this  may  be  met  with  in  any  critical  edition 
of  the  New  Testament.  We  refer  only  to  one.  It  is  a 
question  of  very  great  importance  whether  in  Mark  i.  2 
we  should  read  "  as  it  is  written  in  the  prophets,"  or 
"  as  it  is  written  in  Isaiah  the  proj)het,"  and  the  evidence 
of  Iren?eus,  a  writer  of  the  second  half  of  the  second 
century,  would  be  here  of  peculiar  value.  That  Father 
quotes  the  text  at  one  time  in  the  one  form,  at  another 
in  the  other. 

The  value  of  patristic  citations  is  indeed  sometimes 
very  high.  It  may  happen  that  New  Testament  passages 
are  cited  with  the  express  intention  of  giving  the  words 
of  the  orioiual,  that  the  whole  course  of  tlie  writer's 
argument  may  be  dependent  on  the  fact  that  he  found  a 
particular  word  in  the  text  before  him,  or  that  he  may 


92  First  Step  in  Classification. 

even  discuss  tlie  merits  of  different  readings,  and  de- 
liberately give  the  preference  to  one.  In  such  cases  the 
value  of  citations  is  so  great  that  they  become  to  a  large 
degree,  in  a  manner  to  be  afterwards  considered  by 
us,  tests  of  the  value  of  those  manuscripts  in  which 
similar  or  different  readings  occur.  But  this  is  not  their 
general  character.  Neither  ought  it  to  be  forgotten  that 
they  may  often  be  useful  as  corroborative  authorities. 
The  weight  which  they  have  not  of  themselves  they  may 
receive  from  tlieir  agreement  with  other  witnesses ;  and, 
agreeing  with  them,  they  may  confirm  their  evidence. 
It  must  be  obvious,  how^ever,  from  all  that  has  been  said, 
that  the  higliest  position  that  can  be  assigned  to  cita- 
tions in  general  is  that  of  being  subsidiary  aids  in 
fixing  the  true  reading  of  disputed  passages.  First 
authorities  tliey  are  not.  Our  circle  is  narrower  than 
it  was. 

2.  As  to  versions,  or  translations  of  the  Greek  text 
into  other  languages,  their  value  in  bearing  testimony  to 
the  general  purity  and  integrity  of  the  fonn  in  which 
the  New  Testament  has  come  down  to  us  cannot  be  too 
higbty  spohen  of;  nor  is  it  possible  to  admire  too  much 
the  providential  arrangement  which  led  to  the  Bible's 
being  early  translated  into  many  different  tongues,  so 
that  its  corru]:)tion,  to  any  large  extent,  became  almost,  if 
not  altogether,  an  impossibility.  That,  however,  is  not 
the  point  with  which  we  are  at  present  dealing.  We 
desire  to  know  what  is  the  relation  of  versions  to 
manuscripts  in  fixing  particular  words  or  clauses  of  the 
Greek  text.     It  cannot  be  doubted  for  a  moment  that, 


First  Step  in  Classification.  93 

just  as  in  the  case  of  citations,  their  position  is  sub- 
ordinate. 

At  once  the  old  difficulty  meets  us.  What  is  the  true 
text  of  the  version  itself?  Exposed  in  its  early  con- 
dition to  all  the  mischances  that  befell  the. sacred  text, 
the  recovery  of  the  original  text  of  the  one  may  be  a 
problem  hardly  less  difficult  of  solution  than  the  re- 
covery of  the  original  text  of  the  other ;  while,  in 
addition  to  a  deterioration  arising  from  the  unavoidable 
infirmities  of  copyists,  we  are  exposed  to  the  highly 
probable  danger  that  the  transcriber  of  a  version  would 
often  be  tempted  to  correct  it  by  the  authority  of  the 
Greek  text  that  he  possessed.  Again,  even  supposing 
that  we  have  the  version  in  its  original  condition,  it 
may  be  that  it  is  in  a  language  widely  different  in  its 
genius  from  the  Greek ;  that  a  translator  was  anxious 
to  be  elegant  rather  than  accurate ;  that,  even  if  desirous 
to  be  accurate,  he  mistook  the  sense  of  the  words  that 
he  translated. 

On  the  other  hand,  it  must  not  be  forgotten  that  there 
are  some  points  in  regard  to  which  the  evidence  of 
versions  is  entitled  to  the  greatest  weight.  The  pre- 
sence or  absence  of  whole  clauses,  for  example,  is  a 
point  to  which  they  can  clearly  testify.  It  not  un- 
frequently  happened  that  they  were  made  with  such  an 
excessive  literalness  that,  disregarding  the  idiom  of  their 
own  tongue,  they  followed  the  order  and  construction  of 
the  words  in  their  original,  or  simply  transferred  Greek 
words  to  their  own  page  in  the  letters  used  by  them- 
selves.     In  such  cases  their  bearing  on  any  question  at 


94  First  Step  in  Classification. 

issue  is  direct.  We  liave  versions  too  belonging  to  parts 
of  the  world  widely  removed  from  one  another,  so  that 
collusion  of  testimony  was  impossible.  Finally,  it 
greatly  heightens  our  sense  of  their  importance,  when  we 
remember  that  some  of  them  Avere  made  at  an  age  long 
anterior  to  the  date  of  our  oldest  manuscripts.  Not- 
withstanding this,  however,  it  must  be  evident  that  the 
use  of  versions  in  the  critical  emendation  of  the  text  is 
encompassed  with  difficulties  peculiarly  its  own.  Ver- 
sions may  preserve  a  true  reading  long  before  it  has 
been  discovered  in  any  Greek  manuscript,  as  the 
Vulgate  preserved  the  fine  reading  of  Luke  ii.  14,  "  Glory 
to  God  in  the  highest,  and  on  earth  peace  among  men  of 
His  good  pleasure,"  that  is,  among  men  whom  He  hath 
loved.  They  may  be  a  powerful  aid  in  settling  dis- 
puted texts  ;  but  they  cannot  be  depended  on  as  first 
authorities.     Our  circle  has  again  been  narrowed. 

We  are  thus  for  first  authorities  thrown  back  upon 
manuscripts  of  the  Greek  text  itself,  upon  documents 
professing  to  give  us  directly  that  text  as  it  stood  in 
the  infancy  of  the  Christian  Church.  Other  readings 
than  those  presented  there  we  may  find  in  patristic 
citations,  or  we  may  infer  from  versions;  but  the 
instances  must  be  rare  indeed,  if  they  are  even  in  any 
case  to  be  regarded  as  legitimate,  Avhen  we  draw  a  read- 
ing from  any  other  source  than  a  Greek  manuscript. 


CHAPTEE   III. 

SECOND  STEP  IN  CLASSIFICATION. 

[jT  the  point  now  reached  we  have  only 
manuscripts  before  us  as  the  primal  source 
whence  the  readings  of  the  Greek  New 
Testament  are  to  be  drawn.  Not  that  we 
have  laid  citations  and  versions  entirely  aside.  We 
shall  have  by  and  by  to  return  to  them  when  the 
whole  evidence  in  any  particular  case  is  to  be  taken 
into  account.  But,  in  the  meantime,  while  engaged  in 
classifying  our  witnesses,  we  have  seen  reason  to 
believe  that  they  do  not  occupy  the  first  rank.  Greek 
manuscripts  alone  do  that.  These,  however,  are  ex- 
tremely numerous,  and  it  is  quite  possible  that  they 
may  not  all  be  of  the  same  value.  Can  anything  be 
done  then  towards  classifying  them  ? 

In  endeavouring  to  answer  this  question,  it  is  of 
importance  to  bear  distinctly  in  mind  what  it  is  that 
we  are  in  search  of.  It  is  the  original,  and  therefore  the 
most  ancient  text.  It  might  seem,  therefore,  at  first 
sight  that  the  nearer  any  manuscripts  approach  to  it 
in  date,  the   more  valuable  wiU   they  be;   and  that, 


96  Second  Step  in  Classificatioii. 

inasmucli  as  the  Tincial  manuscripts,  whose  distinction 
from  the  cursive  is  already  known  to  our  readers,  are 
our  oldest  group,  we  should  be  justified  in  at  once 
placing  our  dependence  mainly  upon  them.  Here, 
however,  we  are  met  by  the  important  fact  that  there  is 
a  very  great  difference  between  the  oldness  of  a  manu- 
script and  the  oldness  of  its  text.  The  mechanical  act 
of  writing,  and  the  substance  of  what  is  written,  may 
belong  to  very  different  dates.  It  would  not  be  so  were 
we  dealing  only  with  original  compositions.  An  ori- 
gfinal  book  belongs  in  substance  as  well  as  form  to  the 
exact  period  at  which  its  author  lived  and  wrote.  If  we 
know  the  date  of  the  form,  we  know  also  that  of  the 
substance.  But  we  are  now  occupied,  not  with  originals 
but  with  copies,  and  other  considerations  play  their  part. 
A  cursive  manuscript  written,  for  example,  in  the 
eleventh  century,  may  quite  well  present  to  us  a  text 
belonging  to  the  fourth,  or  perhaps  even  an  earlier  cen- 
tury. It  might  be  one  of  the  manuscripts  of  that 
centur}^,  now  lost,  from  which  it  was  copied.  Whether 
it  was  so  is  to  be  determined  by  considerations  of  which 
we  have  not  yet  spoken;  but  if  there  be  good  ground 
for  believing  tliat  it  was  so,  it  is  clear  that  it  is  not  to 
have  its  value  diminished  by  the  unimportant  circum- 
stance that  it  is  written  in  cursive,  not  in  uncial,  letters. 
No  doubt  if  a  witness  present  himself  to  us  in  uncial 
clothing,  we  have  for  the  most  part,  though  not  even 
then  always,  reason  to  believe  both  that  he  is  old  and 
that  his  text  is  old;  whereas,  in  the  case  of  one  who 
appears  in  cursive  clothing,  it  is  a  matter  for  inquiry 


Second  Step  in  Classification.  97 

whether,  though  the  fashion  of  his  garb  be  modern,  the 
substance  of  the  garb,  in  other  words  the  text  itself, 
may  not  be  as  old  as  in  the  former  case.  Still  the  out- 
ward appearance  of  the  witness  is  not  decisive.  We 
must  dismiss  the  idea  that  the  style  in  which  a  manu- 
script is  written  is  conclusive  either  as  to  its  value  or 
its  worthlessness. 

Have  we  then  any  means  of  classifying  our  witnesses 
upon  the  principle  of  more  or  less  ancientness  of  text  ? 
A  little  consideration  of  the  matter  will  show  us  that  we 
have ;  and,  when  we  have  done  it,  a  second  step  in 
classification  will  have  been  gained. 

In  the  first  place,  we  can  separate  our  most  ancient 
uncial  manuscripts  from  the  rest,  and  determine 
from  them  the  general  character  of  an  ancient  text. 
What  is  in  them  testifies  to  the  state  of  the  text  in 
their  day,  and  must  be  old  simply  because  they  are  old. 
We  can  then  institute  a  comparison  between  this  text 
and  that  of  our  more  modern  manuscripts.  If,  in  doing 
so,  it  can  be  shown  that  there  is  a  very  great  resem- 
blance, and  that  the  various  readings  presented,  not- 
withstanding this  resemblance,  by  the  moderns,  can 
only  be  accounted  for  by  the  supposition  that  they  ex- 
isted in  the  Church  at  a  very  early  period,  and  that  they 
have  no  connection  with  the  mere  flux  of  time  and  its 
changes,  we  at  once  pronounce  these  modern  manuscripts 
to  be  old  in  text  though  not  in  lettering.  If,  on  the 
other  hand,  the  differences  are  obviously  produced,  not 
by  the  faithful  handing  down  of  other  ancient  readings, 
but  by  that  gradual  process  of  change,  sometimes  more 


98  Second  Step  in  Classification. 

sometimes  less  conscious,  which  is  inseparable  from  re- 
peated copyings,  especially  where  the  copyists  differ  in 
training  and  taste,  we  must  regard  the  manuscripts  con- 
taining these  differences  as  modern,  not  only  in  form  but 
in  text.  Now  it  is  often  possible  to  trace  differences  of 
this  latter  class.  We  can  almost  see  the  process  of 
change  going  on,  alterations  finding  their  way  into  the 
text,  roughnesses  softened  down,  difficulties  cleared 
away,  anomalous  turns  of  language  removed,  the  whole 
character  of  the  text  becoming  different  from  what  it 
was.  Wherever  this  can  be  done,  we  have  gained  the 
line  of  demarcation  we  are  in  search  of.  We  are  en- 
titled to  say  that  manuscripts  upon  which  such  changes 
have  been  produced  are  not  so  worthy  of  reliance  as 
those  by  which  the  changes  have  been  escaped. 

In  the  second  place,  we  can  go  even  further  than  has 
now  been  said,  and  can  determine  with  still  greater  pre- 
cision whether  the  text  of  any  manuscript  before  us,  be 
it  uncial  or  cursive,  is  ancient  or  not.  We  know  from 
entirely  independent  testimony,  of  a  kind  to  be  more 
fully  spoken  of  when  we  reach  our  next  point,  how 
certain  passages  of  Scripture  were  read  in  ancient  times. 
By  these  we  can  test  our  witnesses.  One  comes  before 
us  with  all  the  appearance  of  antiquity.  We  ask  him, 
How  do  you  read  such  and  such  passages  ?  If  he  answer 
us  as,  by  the  supposition,  we  know  that  they  were  read 
in  ancient  times ;  well.  It  is  so  far  at  least  a  proof  that 
he  is  what  he  claims  to  be.  But  if  he  answer  us  as  we 
know  that  they  were  read  only  in  modern  not  in  ancient 
times,  we  at  once  say,  You  do  not  sustain  your  profes- 


Second  Step  in  Classification.  99 

sion;  you  look  as  if  you  belonged  to  tlie  Fathers;  in 
reality,  you  are  one  of  their  late  descendants.  Again, 
one  comes  before  us  with  all  the  appearance  of  being  a 
modern.  We  apply  the  same  test.  He  may  show  that, 
so  far  as  our  main  purpose  is  concerned,  he  belongs  to  a 
remote  antiquity. 

In  the  third  place,  such  a  separation  as  that  of  which 
we  have  been  speaking  has  actually  been  made  in 
certain  cases  with  the  consent  of  all.  Inquirers  differ 
as  to  the  value  they  attach  to  the  classes  thus  separated 
from  each  other.  They  do  not  deny  that  the  classes 
exist.  There  are  modern  manuscripts  which  all  allow 
to  possess  an  ancient  text,  and  to  be  in  this  respect  dis- 
tinguished from  the  great  mass  of  their  fellows. 

It  is  no  doubt  possible  that  even  manuscripts,  not 
exhibiting  what  may  be  called  an  ancient  text  upon  the 
whole,  may  occasionally  preserve  an  apostolic  word  or 
phrase  that  somehow  or  other  has  dropped  out  of  their 
more  ancient  companions.  That  they  have  preserved 
much  that  is  apostolic  is  obvious,  for  in  much  all  our 
witnesses  agree,  and  that  must  be  apostolic.  They  may 
therefore  have  preserved  more.  The  difficulty  is  to 
make  sure  that  they  have  done  so.  No  agreement 
among  themselves  can  be  sufficient  to  convince  us,  for 
they  may  have  been  led  astray  by  some  common  cause. 
No  mere  number  witnessing  the  same  thing  can  be  of 
the  least  avail.  Unless  we  are  satisfied  that  each  indi- 
vidual of  the  number  would  be  a  good  witness  though 
he  stood  alone,  the  mere  bringing  them  together  as  a 
multitude  may  disturb,  but   cannot   convince.     They 


100  Second  Step  in  Classification. 

must  prove  their  title  to  be  heard ;  and  appearances 
being  certainly  against  them,  inasmuch  as  they  differ 
from  our  older  witnesses,  we  are  entitled  to  ask  that  the 
proof  they  offer  us  shall  be  unambiguous  and  weighty. 

Thus  then  we  have  taken  another  step,  and  one  most 
fruitful  of  results.  It  is  a  demonstrated  fact,  that  the 
great  mass  of  manuscripts  belonging  to  the  later  centuries 
of  the  Christian  Church  cannot  stand  the  tests  of  which 
we  have  been  speaking.  We  shall  not  say  that  they 
are  therefore  to  be  put  wholly  aside,  but  certainly  they 
are  not  primary  authorities.  Our  circle  has  again  been 
greatly  narrowed. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

THIRD  STEP  IN  CLASSIFICATION. — PART  I. 

|Y  the  process  of  classification  hitherto  pursued 
we  have  been  enabled  to  diminish  greatly 
the  number  of  our  primary  witnesses  to  the 
Greek  text  of  the  New  Testament.  We 
have  also  been  able  to  secure  that  all  those  to  whose 
evidence  we  are  chiefly  to  attend  have  an  ancient  text, 
a  text  at  least  ancient  in  its  general  character.  It  may 
be  thought  that  this  should  be  enough  for  us ;  but  it 
must  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  oldest  of  our  manuscripts 
does  not  go  back  to  a  point  of  time  older  than  the  first 
half  of  the  fourth  century,  and  that  the  texts  therefore 
hitherto  mainly  used  by  us  take  us  only  to  that  date,  a 
date  three  centuries  later  than  that  at  which  the  sacred 
autographs  were  written.  This  indeed  would  be  a 
matter  of  no  consequence  if  two  conditions  affecting  the 
question  before  us  could  be  fulfilled.  First,  had  we 
reason  to  believe  that,  up  to  the  period  to  which  our 
oldest  manuscripts  belong,  the  text  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment had  remained  pure  and  free  from  error,  then  those 
witnesses,  bearing  testimony  to  its  condition  in  their 


102  Third  Step  in  Classification. 

own  day,  would  at  the  same  time  testify  to  what  it  was 
in  the  days  of  the  Apostles.  Secondly,  were  our  wit- 
nesses agreed  in  their  testimony,  we  should  at  once  and 
without  further  difficulty  be  able  to  determine  the  pre- 
cise words  that  were  read  by  them  as  Scripture,  and  a 
very  strong  presumption  would  be  given  in  their  behalf. 
Unfortunately  neither  of  these  two  conditions  is  com- 
plied with. 

As  to  the  first,  we  know  that  the  text  of  the  New 
Testament,  so  far  from  having  continued  pure  during 
the  first  three  centuries  of  its  existence,  had  fallen  into 
a  state  of  remarkable  confusion  long  before  that  period 
expired.  Several  circumstances  combine  to  show  this. 
The  differences  among- our  ancient  witnesses  themselves, 
a  point  as  yet  only  alluded  to,  and  to  be  immediately 
spoken  of  more  fully,  are  a  clear  proof  of  the  fact.  Had 
the  text  been  preserved  in  its  original  condition  they 
could  not  all  at  once  have  exhibited  the  diversity  that 
we  actually  meet  with.  It  was  one  at  the  first ;  it 
would  have  been  one  then.  Again,  although  we  have 
no  manuscripts  older  than  the  early  part  of  the  fourth 
century,  we  have  translations  of  the  New  Testament 
made  into  other  languages  nearly  two  centuries  earlier, 
together  with  quotations  from  it  embodied  in  writings 
of  the  Fathers  belonging  to  as  remote  an  age  ;  and  these 
translations  and  quotations  leave  no  doubt  that,  when 
they  were  made,  very  many  passages  were  read  in  their 
particular  districts  quite  otherwise  than  we  find  them  in 
our  oldest  manuscripts.  Still  further,  we  can  see  from 
the  works  of  the  early  Fathers  of  the  Church  that  they 


Third  Step  in  Classification.  103 

were  often  greatly  perplexed  by  the  variety  of  readings 
that  came  under  their  notice.  They  speak  of  it  con- 
tinually, and  often  in  tones  of  much  hesitation  and 
doubt.  They  refer  to  manuscripts  even  then  older  than 
others.  They  describe  some  manuscripts  as  being  more 
accurate  than  others.  They  blame  opponents  for  wil- 
fully falsifying  the  text.  They  discuss  the  probabilities 
of  different  claims.  In  short,  they  find  themselves 
largely  compelled  to  pursue  the  same  course  of  argu- 
ment pursued  by  Biblical  critics  at  the  present  day. 
Finally,  we  have  the  express  testimony  of  some  of  the 
most  learned  of  their  number,  of  some  who  devoted 
much  pains  to  the  study  of  the  text  upon  this  very 
point.  We  shall  refer  only  to  two,  the  most  learned,  the 
most  critical  of  them  all,  one  of  whom  flourished  in  the 
third  century,  the  other  in  the  fourth.  The  first,  Origen, 
commenting  upon  Matt.  xix.  19,  where  words  occur 
falsely  thought  by  him  to  be  corrupt,  says,  "  It  might 
appear  madness  in  me  to  consider  these  words  as  an 
addition  to  the  text,  were  there  not  also  in  many  other 
things  such  a  variety  in  the  copies  of  the  Gospels,  that 
neither  do  those  of  Matthew  correspond  with  one 
another  nor  with  those  of  the  other  Evangelists.  But 
now  the  diversity  of  copies  is  become  truly  great, 
whether  through  the  carelessness  of  the  copyists  or 
through  the  wilful  daring  of  those  who  are  occupied  in 
correcting  what  is  copied,  or  through  those  again  who 
venture  to  make  improvements  upon  their  own  judg- 
ment, sometimes  addimr,  and  at  other  times  blottinor 
out."     The  second,  Jerome,  says,  in  his  epistle  to  Pope 


104  Third  Step  in  Classification. 

Damasus,  "  If  confidence  is  to  be  placed  in  the  Latin 
texts,  let  them  tell  ns  in  which ;  for  the  texts  are  almost 
as  numerous  as  the  copies."  It  is  true  that  Jerome  is 
here  speaking  of  the  Latin  texts,  but  the  simple  fact 
that  they  were  thus  corrupt  is  evidence  enough  that  the 
variations  in  different  manuscripts  of  the  original  must 
have  been  great. 

To  what  causes  this  corruption  of  the  text  about  the 
beginning  of  the  fourth  century  is  to  be  ascribed  it 
would  be  extremely  difficult  to  say.  The  natural,  the 
inevitable  causes  spoken  of  in  the  former  part  of  this 
work,  undoubtedly  contributed  to  it,  but  they  are  not  of 
themselves,  by  any  means,  a  sufficient  explanation.  The 
fact,  however,  without  going  into  this,  is  sufficient  for 
our  present  purpose.  It  evidently  presents  a  very 
serious  difficulty  when  we  would  proceed  to  estimate 
the  merits  of  our  ancient  witnesses  who  belong  to  that 
age.  .      • 

The  second  difficulty  alluded  to  is  not  less  great. 
When  we  examine  our  ancient  witnesses,  we  find  that 
they  are  very  far  indeed  from  being  unanimous  in  the 
testimony  given  by  them.  They  are  constantly  at 
variance  with  one  another.  We  take  one  or  two  of 
them  that  seem  to  approach  most  closely;  and  for  a 
time,  as  we  travel  with  them,  we  find  nothing  but  a 
delightful  harmony  of  statement.  All  at  once  they 
diverge.  First  the  one  and  then  the  other  joins  a 
different  group.  But  attachment  to  the  new  companions 
does  not  continue  long.  Divergence  from  them  speedily 
appears.      And  so  they  go  on  in  ever-varying  combina- 


Third  Step  in  Classification.  105 

tions,  till  the  impression  is  apt  to  be  produced  on  us 
that  anything  like  a  well-grounded  verdict  on  our  part 
is  impossible. 

And  so  it  would  be,  were  all  our  ancient  authorities 
regarded  by  us  as  equally  worthy  of  reliance.  But 
there  cannot  be  a  greater  mistake  than  to  think  so. 
Two  manuscripts  of  the  fourth  century  may  differ  from 
each  other  in  worth  quite  as  much  as  two  of  the 
sixteenth.  All  the  main  causes  that  operate  in  bringing 
about  a  distinction  in  the  latter  operate  also  in  the 
former  case.  The  old  were  copies  like  the  young.  They 
may  have  been  copied  from  bad  originals.  They  may 
have  been  carelessly  copied.  Age  alone  cannot  be 
accepted  as  decisive  of  their  value.  It  will  thus  be  seen 
that  we  are  brought  back  to  the  point  from  which  we 
started  in  this  chapter.  The  two  conditions  that  would 
have  saved  us  from  any  effort  to  discriminate  between 
our  ancient  witnesses  cannot  be  complied  with.  Nothing 
remains  but  that  we  make  up  our  minds  as  to  their 
relative  value,  and  the  weight  to  be  attached  to  them. 

Here  one  of  the  most  interesting  and  important  pro- 
blems connected  with  our  inquiry  opens  oti  our  view. 
How  shall  we  decide  between  the  conflicting  claims 
of  manuscripts  all  presenting  so  far  at  least  an  ancient 
text  ?  We  shall  explain  the  principle  of  the  process  to 
be  resorted  to,  and  shall  then  confirm  and  illustrate  it  in 
a  separate  chapter  by  one  or  two  examples. 

The  great  fact  to  be  borne  in  mind  is  this,  that  we 
have  in  early  versions  of  the  New  Testament,  and 
especially  in  early  quotations  from  it  in  the  writings  of 


106  Third  Step  in  Classification. 

the  Churcli  Fathers,  evidence  as  to  the  manner  in  which 
a  large  number  of  important  texts  were  read  at  a  date 
much  more  remote  than  that  of  the  oldest  of  our  exist- 
ing manuscripts.  It  is  true  that  this  evidence  is  not 
free  from  the  influences  that  have  weakened  the  effect 
of  the  evidence  of  our  manuscripts  themselves.  The 
text  of  translations  and  of  quotations  has  been  affected 
by  time  as  well  as  their  text.  The  editions  of  them 
that  have  been  published  are  not  unfrequently  far  from 
being  so  critical  and  correct  as  to  entitle  them  to  be 
confidently  relied  on.  We  may  often  be  as  uncertain  as 
to  the  readings  they  presented  at  the  time  when  the 
manuscripts  containing  them  appeared,  for  they  too 
were  once  known  only  in  that  form,  as  we  are  with 
regard  to  the  readings  we  would  deduce  from  the 
manuscripts  of  the  New  Testament  itself.  Still,  after 
making  all  allowance  for  these  chances  of  error,  a 
sufficient  amount  of  certainty  remains  to  enable  us  to 
come  to  a  definite  conclusion  as  to  the  manner  in  which 
a  large  number  of  important  texts  were  read,  at  a 
date  long  anterior  to  that  from  which  any  manuscript 
evidence  has  come  down  to  us.  But  we  are  not  confined 
to  the  sources  now  referred  to  for  the  certainty  of  which 
we  speak.  Other  considerations  come  also  into  play. 
Arguments  as  to  the  original  reading  of  the  texts  we  are 
selecting  may  be  drawn  from  the  general  verdict  of 
manuscript  authority  regarding  them;  for  although  that 
authority  is  later  than  the  evidence  of  early  versions 
and  quotations,  it  may  often  carry  us  back,  by  way 
of  confirmation,  to  what  these  testify.    Internal  evidence 


Third  Step  in  Classification.  107 

too,  springing  from  such  things  as  the  context  of  the 
passage,  the  style  of  the  writer,  or  the  analogy  of  Scrip- 
ture, may  be  taken  into  account.  Each  of  these  has  some 
weight,  and  forms  a  legitimate  part  of  the  proof  by 
which  we  settle  with  ourselves  the  manner  in  which  the 
texts  we  have  fixed  on  were  read  in  the  first  or  second 
century,  if  not  at  the  very  first.  We  establish  these 
readings  then ;  and  pursuing  the  same  course  as  that 
already  indicated  in  the  last  chapter,  only  now  with 
much  greater  minuteness  and  particularity  than  were 
then  necessary,  we  test  by  means  of  them  the  value  of 
each  of  the  ancient  manuscripts  in  our  hands.  If  it 
contain  them  in  the  form  we  expect  it  is  a  proof  that  it 
is  good.  If  it  do  not  contain  them  in  that  form  we  con- 
clude that  it  is  of  inferior  value. 

It  will  be  at  once  seen  that  the  principle  now  ad- 
vocated is  thoroughly  sound,  and  that,  not  only  in  so 
far  as  it  applies  to  the  reading  of  the  particular  texts 
that  have  been  under  examination,  but  in  relation  to  the 
general  value  of  each  of  our  manuscripts  as  a  whole. 
Upon  the  first  of  tliese  two  points  there  can  be  no 
doubt.  We  used  all  available  evidence  in  settling  the 
reading  of  our  characteristic  texts,  and  the  judgment 
of  the  single  manuscript  we  are  examining  will,  if  it 
dissent  from  that  evidence,  not  disturb,  if  it  agree  with 
it,  will  confirm  our  conclusion.  But  the  second  point 
is  equally  indisputable ;  for  surely  it  will  not  be  denied 
that  proved  value  in  regard  to  a  number  of  texts,  and 
these  characteristic  and  important  ones,  is  a  fair  test  of 
the  value  of  a  manuscript  in  general.     Proved  veracity 


108  Tliird  Step  in  Classification. 

in  a  witness  upon  many  points  is  a  reason  why  we 
should  not  only  believe  him  upon  these  points,  but  why 
we  should  accept  him  as  a  generally  credible  witness. 
Let  us  refuse  to  acknowledge  this,  and  a  fundamental 
law  of  evidence  is  overthrown. 


CHAPTEE  V. 

THIKD   STEP   IN   CLASSIFICATION. — PART   II. 

E  have  explained  the  principle  by  which  the 
relative  value  of  ancient   manuscripts,    all 
possessing  great  claims  on  our  regard,  is  to 
be  tested,  and  we  proceed  now  to  give  ane 
or  two  illustrations  of  the  process. 

Let  us  take  first  a  test  to  which  reference  has  been 
already  made,  Matt.  vi.  4,  "  And  thy  Father,  which  seeth 
in  secret,  shall  reward  thee  openly."  The  word  "openly" 
is  found  in  several  ancient  manuscripts,  but  it  is 
omitted  in  three  of  the  most  ancient.  It  is  evidently 
necessary  that  we  should  know  whether  the  former  or 
the  latter  are  most  worthy  of  our  confidence  before  we 
venture  to  decide  between  them.  Now  in  connection 
with  this  text  it  happens  that  we  have  the  means  of 
doing  so.  One  of  the  most  celebrated  of  the  Fathers 
directed  his  particular  attention  to  the  question  whether 
the  word  "  openly  "  should  stand  in  the  text  or  not,  and  at 
last  excluded  it  on  the  ground  that,  though  found  in 
many  Latin  translations  of  his  day,  it  was  not  found  in 
the   Greek   manuscripts,   which   were    earlier  in   date. 


110  Third  Step  in  Classification. 

This  testimony  is  very  strong.  We  turn  to  t"he  most 
ancient  Greek  manuscripts  that  have  come  down  to  us, 
and  the  word  is  not  found  in  them.  It  is  also  wanting 
in  two  or  three  important  translations,  and  in  citations 
of  the  text  given  by  several  of  the  Fathers.  Farther,  as 
already  pointed  out  in  a  previous  chapter,  the  insertion 
of  the  word  mars  the  sense  of  the  passage,  and  leads  to 
a  different  idea  from  that  which  our  Lord  evidently 
intended  to  convey.  In  these  circumstances  it  is  an 
easy  conclusion  from  the  evidence  that  "  openly  "  ought 
to  be  omitted.  That,  however,  is  not  what  we  have 
at  present  in  view.  We  rather  lay  aside  one  of  the 
ancient  manuscripts  testifying  to  the  omission.  Our 
verdict  on  this  point  will  not  be  affected.  There  is  abun- 
dant evidence  without  it.  We  determine  fully  that  the 
omission  should  be  made.  We  then  take  up  the  old 
manuscript  laid  aside,  and  as  yet  supposed  to  be  unex- 
amined. Has  it,  or  has  it  not,  the  word  ?  It  wants  it. 
Thus  we  have  a  proof  so  far,  though  one  text  will  of 
course  go  but  a  little  way  in  such  an  inquiry,  that  that 
manuscript  is  right,  and  more  worthy  of  being  relied  on 
than  any  manuscript,  even  though  an  ancient  one,  in 
which  the  word  occurs. 

Again,  we  take  another  very  interesting  text,  Matt. 
V.  22.  The  reading  of  our  English  Bibles  is,  "  But  I 
say  unto  you.  That  whosoever  is  angry  with  his  brother 
without  a  cause  shall  be  in  danger  of  the  judgment." 
Now  we  know  from  the  express  testimony  of  the  two 
most  celebrated  critical  Fathers  of  the  Early  Church, 
that  the  words  "  without  a  cause"  were  not  found  in  the 


Third  Step  in  Classification.  Ill 

best  manuscripts  then  existing,  and  that  in  their  opinion, 
therefore,  they  ought  to  be  excluded.  "  In  some  manu- 
scripts," says  one  of  them,  "'without  a  cause'  is  added; 
but,  in  the  true  ones,  the  sentence  is  made  quite  ex- 
clusive, and  anger  is  completely  taken  away.  'Without 
a  cause/  therefore,  ought  to  be  banished  from  the  text." 
"But  some  think,"  says  the  other,  "that  we  may  be 
angry  reasonably,  improperly  adding  'without  a  cause' 
to  what  we  find  in  the  Gospel,  according  as  it  is  said, 
'  whosoever  is  angry  with  his  brother  shall  be  in  danger 
of  the  judgment,'  for  some  read  '  whosoever  is  angry 
with  his  brother  without  a  cause.'"  As  before,  this 
testimony  that  the  phrase  should  be  omitted  is  very 
strong.  With  all  their  varied  learning  and  great  oppor- 
tunities, these  Fathers  had  considered  the  matter,  and 
come  to  a  clear  and  unhesitating  decision.  The  phrase 
is  also  wanting  in  two  of  our  oldest  manuscripts,  in 
several  valuable  translations,  and  in  others  of  the 
Fathers  besides  the  two  now  cited.  Internal  evidence  is 
also  against  it.  So  soon  as  we  have  reason  to  doubt  the 
propriety  of  its  presence,  we  see  that  it  has  all  the 
appearance  of  a  word  inserted  to  avoid  the  apparent 
harshness  of  the  precept  without  it ;  while,  if  it  was  an 
original  portion  of  Scripture,  it  is  very  difficult  to  give 
satisfactory  reasons  for  the  removal,  the  difficulty  of  the 
passage  being  thereby  unquestionably  increased.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  precept,  if  we  omit  the  phrase,  is  in 
striking  harmony  with  the  at  first  sight  sharp,  extreme, 
almost  paradoxical  character  of  various  other  precepts  of 
the  Sermon  on  the  Mount.     Although,  therefore,  we  do 


112  Third  Step  in  Classification. 

find  the  phrase  in  a  good  many  uncials,  including  in 
this  case  one  of  the  oldest,  in  the  great  mass  of  cursives, 
in  several  versions  and  Fathers,  it  is  not  difficult  to 
decide  that  it  ought  to  go  out  of  the  text.  As  before, 
however,  that  is  not  what  we  have  at  present  in  view. 
We  rather  lay  aside  one  of  the  ancient  manuscripts 
testifying  to  the  omission,  if  possible,  and  it  is  here  pos- 
sible, the  same  one  as  before.  Our  verdict  on  the  point  of 
omission  will  not  be  affected.  There  is  abundant  evi- 
dence without  it.  We  determine  fully  that  the  omission 
should  be  made.  We  then  take  up  the  old  manuscript 
laid  aside,  and  as  yet  supposed  to  be  unexamined,  has  it, 
or  has  it  not,  the  words  (one  word  in  Greek)  ?  It  wants 
them.  Thus  we  have  again  so  far  a  proof  that  that 
manuscript  is  right,  and  worthy  of  being  relied  on. 

We  take  still  another  text  from  the  Gospel  of  St.  Mat- 
thew, xxviii.  9,  "  And  as  they  went  to  tell  His  disciples, 
behold,  Jesus  met  them,  saying,  All  hail.  And  they  came 
and  held  Him  by  the  feet,  and  worshipped  Him."  The 
words  here,  "  as  they  went  to  tell  His  disciples,"  are  found 
in  some  uncial  manuscripts,  but  not  in  others.  We  desire 
to  know  upon  which  of  these  we  may  most  rely.  We 
pursue  therefore  exactly  the  same  process  as  before. 
Several  of  the  Fathers  bear  distinct  witness  to  the  fact 
that  these  words  should  not  be  there,  and  so  do  two  of 
our  most  ancient  manuscripts  (the  one  that  we  are 
testing  being  in  the  meanwhile  laid  aside),  together  with 
many  other  important  authorities.  So  far  therefore  as 
that  point  is  concerned  we  can  without  difficulty  come 
to   a   conclusion.     The  words   have   no  right  to  their 


Third  Step  in  Classification.  113 

position  in  the  text.  We  turn  up  the  manuscript  under 
examination.  Does  it  have,  or  does  it  want,  them  ?  It 
wants  them.  The  conclusion  as  to  its  trustworthiness 
drawn  in  the  two  previous  instances  must  be  drawn 
again. 

Once  more,  we  take  a  very  interesting  passage  from 
the  Gospel  of  St.  John,  vi.  11.  It  occurs  in  the  account 
given  by  that  Apostle  of  the  multiplying  of  the  bread, 
"  And  JesLis  took  the  loaves ;  and  when  He  had  given 
thanks,  He  distributed  to  the  disciples,  and  the  disciples 
to  them  that  were  set  down."  Such  is  the  reading  of 
some  of  our  authorities ;  but  others,  omitting  a  portion 
of  the  sentence,  read,  "  And  Jesus  took  the  loaves,  and 
when  He  had  given  thanks.  He  distributed  to  them  that 
were  set  doAvn."  The  difference,  it  will  be  observed,  is 
that,  according  to  the  latter  reading,  Jesus  directly  dis- 
tributes the  bread  Himself;  that,  according  to  the  former, 
He  does  it  by  means  of  His  disciples.  Now  we  find  that 
all  the  most  important  versions,  and  all  the  most  trust- 
worthy Fathers  who  allude  to  the  verse,  so  decidedly 
support  the  first  of  these  two  views,  that  we  can  have 
no  hesitation  in  adopting  it.  The  verse  ought  to  read, 
"  He  distributed  to  them  that  were  set  down."  We 
return  to  the  particular  manuscript  we  are  testing. 
How  does  the  case  stand  with  it  ?  It  wants  the  words  ; 
and  we  have  fresh  confirmation  of  its  value. 

One  other  example  taken  from  the  Epistles  may  fitly 
close  this  list.  We  take  1  Cor.  vi.  20,  "  Therefore  glorify 
God  in  your  body,  and  in  your  spirit,  which  are  God's." 
We  can  establish  without  the  use  of  tlie  manuscript 


114  Third  Stejp  in  Classification. 

with  wliicli  we  are  dealing,  that  all  the  words  here  met 
with  after  "  hody  "  have  no  right  to  a  place  in  the  text, 
which  ought  to  read  simply,  "  therefore  glorify  God  in 
your  body."  We  turn  to  our  manuscript  as  before.  It 
wants  the  words,  and  we  are  strengthened  in  our  old 
conclusion. 

The  same  process  has  to  be  applied  to  each  of  our 
ancient  manuscripts  in  succession,  testing  each  by  the 
mode  in  which  it  reads  texts  whose  true  reading  we  have 
been  able  to  ascertain  without  it.  In  proportion  as  it 
agrees  with  them  its  value  is  enhanced ;  in  proportion 
as  it  differs  from  them  it  is  diminished.  In  the  five 
texts  now  selected  one  manuscript  was  found  to  stand 
the  test  of  each.  It  is  certainly  more  valuable,  so  far  as 
five  texts  can  help  us  to  a  conclusion,  than  one  that  could 
stand  the  test  only  twice,  or  thrice,  or  not  at  all. 

The  illustrations  now  given  ought  sufficiently  to  ex- 
plain the  general  nature  of  the  method  resorted  to  for 
the  purpose  of  determining  the  point  that  we  have  had 
before  us.  How  we  are  to  arrange  and  classify  those  an- 
cient manu.scripts  that  unfortunately  so  often  differ  from 
one  another.  Our  illustrations  convey  of  course  no  idea 
of  the  very  large  number  of  texts  to  which  the  process  must 
be  applied,  or  of  the  complications  that  have  often  to  be 
met  before  a  final  decision  can  be  come  to.  Yet  enough 
ought  to  have  been  said  to  show  that,  when  critics  of  the 
text  of  Scripture  make  an  alteration  in  the  standard  text 
they  do  not  make  it  at  random.  They  know  what  they  are 
about.  By  long,  laborious,  anxious  study  they  have  been 
able  to  establish  certain  principles  by  which  they  can 


Tlm^d  Step  in  Classification.  115 

decide  as  to  the  character  of  the  witnesses  before  them ; 
and  they  are  thus  prepared  for  giving  their  verdict  upon 
the  whole  case  in  the  calm  judicial  spirit  of  a  judge  upon 
the  bench. 

The  effect  also  of  the  procedure  now  advocated  upon 
the  mass  of  our  materials  for  judging  of  the  true  text  of 
the  New  Testament  will  be  at  once  apparent.  It  is  a 
fact  admitting  of  no  contradiction,  that  the  number  even 
of  our  ancient  manuscripts  capable  of  standing  well  the 
test  of  which  we  have  been  speaking  is  but  small.  We 
have  to  add  to  them  indeed  those  of  our  modern  manu- 
scripts that  pass  with  equal  credit  through  the  trial,  for 
we  have  already  seen  that  in  such  an  event  the  modern 
manuscript  is,  as  having  an  ancient  text,  to  be  ranked 
for  our  purpose  along  with  the  ancients  themselves. 
Again,  however,  this  number  is  not  great.  Both  ancients 
and  moderns  together,  able  to  vindicate  their  rioiit  to 
occupy  the  highest  place  in  the  list  of  tested  manuscripts, 
are  but  few  in  number.  Our  circle  of  primary  authorities 
has  been  still  more  narrowed. 


CHAPTEE  VI. 

GENERAL   RESULT   OF   CLASSIFICATION. 

EFOKE  proceeding  further,  it  will  be  well  for 
"US  to  pause  for  a  moment,  and  to  consider 
the  result  that  we  have  reached.  We  have 
been  endeavouring  so  to  classify  our  wit- 
nesses to  the  text  of  the  New  Testament  that  we'  may 
distinguish  their  various  merits,  not  putting  aiiy  of  them 
absolutely  aside,  but  arranging  them  according  to  what 
seem  their  different  degrees  of  credibility.  We  have 
been  doing  this  too  with  the  view  of  narrowing,  if  pos- 
sible, our  circle  of  primary  authorities,  so  that  we 
may  not  lose  ourselves  in  what  would  otlierwise  be  a 
labyrinth  of  confusion,  through  whose  windings  we  have 
no  clue  to  guide  us.  We  have  seen  that  versions  and 
quotations  are  less  valuable  than  manuscripts  of  the  text; 
that  manuscripts  possessing  an  ancient  text  have  a 
greater  claim  on  our  attention  than  those  whose  text  is 
comparatively  modern ;  although  if  a  modern  manu- 
script possess,  as  some  of  them  actually  do,  an  ancient 
type  of  text,  the  mere  fact  of  its  being  modern  in  form 
does  not  detract  from  its  value.     For  the  purpose  that 


General  Result  of  Classification.  117 

we  have  in  hand  it  is  really  ancient,  and  must  take  its 
place  along  witli  those  that  are  so  both  in  form  and  in 
substance.  We  have  also  seen  that  we  are  in  possession 
of  a  principle  by  which  we  can  determine  that  certain 
even  of  the  ancients  are  better  witnesses  than  others, 
because  they  have  preserved  for  us  readings  that  we 
have  independent  authority  for  believing  to  have  existed 
at  the  nearest  date  to  the  time  of  the  Apostles,  as  to 
which  we  have  any  evidence  at  all. 

The  result  of  the  principles  now  advocated  is  so 
important;  and  at  the  same  time  so  unexpected,  that  it  is 
necessary  to  pause  over  it  for  a  moment,  and  to  see 
whether,  in  the  presence  of  that  result,  we  are  prepared 
to  abide  by  our  conclusion.  The  result  is  that,  notwith- 
standing the  enormous  mass  of  evidence  that  we  have  in 
our  hands  as  to  the  text  of  the  New  Testament,  our 
primary  authorities  are  reduced  to  a  very  small  number. 
It  is  an  admitted  fact,  in  particular  with  regard  to 
manuscripts  on  which,  as  we  have  seen,  our  dependence 
is  mainly  to  be  placed,  that  by  far  the  larger  part  of  tliem 
do  present  a  text  differing  to  no  inconsiderable  degree 
from  that  found  in  the  few  to  which  we  have  urged  that 
a  decided  preference  should  be  given. 

Formidable  objection  is  therefore  taken  to  this  result. 
It  is  pleaded  that  the  resolution  to  follow  it  up  in  the 
actual  construction  of  the  text  is  unfair  to  the  great 
numerical  preponderance  of  witnesses  on  the  other  side. 
It  is  conceded  that  character,  not  number,  should  prevail ; 
but  the  number  against  our  few  is,  in  the  present  instance, 
so  very  considerable  that  it  is  supposed  to  require  a 


118  General  Result  of  Classification. 

certain  modification  of  a  principle  usually  sound.  There 
is  against  us  a  unanimity  so  extensive  and  so  long 
continued  that,  when  it  is  described  even  in  language 
against  which  no  charge  of  exaggeration  can  be  brought, 
it  is  apt  to  leave  an  almost  ineffaceable  impression  on 
many  a  mind  that  we  ought  to  defer  to  it  more  than  we 
have  done. 

If  we  reflect  upon  the  matter  for  an  instant  we  shall 
see  that  the  idea  thus  entertained  is  distinctly  to  be 
repudiated.  It  is  true  that  our  witnesses  stand  by 
hundreds  on  the  one  side ;  by  tens,  or  rather  units,  on 
the  other.  If  then  w^e  have  reason  to  believe  that  the 
former  are  as  good  as  the  latter,  their  evidence  will 
probably  be,  as  su.rely  it  ought  to  be,  conclusive. 
Numbers,  in  such  a  case,  it  would  be  entirely  out  of  the 
question  to  disregard.  But  it  can  hardly  be  said  that 
the  presence  of  numbers,  however  great,  makes  us 
independent  of  investigating  quality.  In  no  inquiry 
that  we  can  engage  in  is  the  character  of  a  witness 
exposed  to  so  many  deteriorating  influences  as  here. 
We  must  satisfy  ourselves  therefore  whether  each,  as  he 
comes  before  us,  has  suffered  in  this  way  or  not.  The 
mere  assertion  of  any  individual  among  them  taken  by 
itself  is  nothing,  and  multiply  nothing  by  hundreds  we 
have  still  nothing. 

It  may  be  urged  indeed  that  we  are  entitled  to  speak 
in  this  way  only  on  condition  that  we  can  show  that 
this  majority  of  our  witnesses  have  no  independent 
character,  that  they  gathered  their  information  from  the 
few,  that  they  corrupted  it  in  the  process,  and  that  we 


General  Result  of  Classification.  119 

can  learn  all  we  wish  to  know  from  the  lips  of  those  to 
whom  they  in  the  first  instance  deferred.  No  obligation 
lies  on  us  to  show  anything  of  the  kind.  We  are  by  no 
means  called  npon  to  prove  that  these  witnesses,  who 
come  to  us  in  crowds,  derived  their  information  from  the 
small  number  to  whom  we  are  disposed  to  attach 
supreme  importance.  Their  value  as  witnesses  may 
have  been  affected  by  many  other  circumstances  besides 
that.  There  may  have  been  collusion  among  them. 
Without  deliberate  collusion  they  may  have  been  led, 
under  the  pressure  of  the  same  powerful  authority,  to 
the  same  utterances.  They  may  have  all  sprung  from 
some  one  region  of  the  world  in  which,  owing  to  peculiar 
circumstances,  some  one,  and  that  an  imperfect,  form  of 
the  text  had  gained  supremacy.  These  things  are  at  least 
possible.  Whether  they  have  actually  happened  or  not 
demands  inquiry.  We  are  entitled  to  say  that  the  credi- 
bility of  all  our  witnesses  must  be  tried  by  tests  which 
every  judge  applies.  If  they  stand  the  test  they  must  be 
listened  to,  but  escape  it  they  cannot. 

It  is  a  matter  of  no  weight  whatever  then  in  the  present 
question  that  it  so  happens  that,  by  the  process  we  have 
been  pursuing,  the  great  majority  of  our  manuscripts 
have  ultimately  to  rank  lower  than  the  few.  The  textual 
critic  is  not  to  blame  that  it  should  be  so.  When  he 
begins  his  labours  he  has  no  preference  for  an  ancient 
over  a  modern,  or  for  one  ancient  over  another.  His 
first  impression  would  probably  be  rather  in  favour  of 
the  great  majority  of  modern  manuscripts.  He  has 
been  accustomed  to  the  readings  which  they  supply. 


120  General  Result  of  Classification. 

He  jSnds  them  easier,  smoother,  less  perplexing  in  the 
forms  and  constructions  of  their  words.  But  the 
determination  of  the  text  of  the  New  Testament  is  far 
too  important,  far  too  sacred  a  thing,  to  permit  him  to 
rest  in  what  is  familiar  and  easy.  He  must  ascertain  to 
the  best  of  his  ability  what  is  true.  Therefore  it  is  that 
he  is  bound  to  test  the  value  of  every  witness  who 
comes  before  him,  of  all  the  evidence  that  is  offered 
him.  Whatever  his  own  predilections  might  be  he 
must  follow  the  course  suggested  by  reason  and 
experience  as  legitimate,  knowing  well  that,  though  the 
result  may  not  be  what  he  himself  would  wish,  "  the 
foolishness  of  God  is  wiser  than  men,  and  the  weakness 
of  God  is  stronger  than  men." 


CHAPTEE  VII. 


THE   PRINCIPLE   OF  GEOUPING, 


P  to  the  point  now  reached  by  us  we  have 
been  speaking  almost  wholly  of  manuscripts 
of  the  Greek  N'ew  Testament,  those  witnesses 
to  which  we  saw,  at  the  outset  of  our  in- 
quiries, that  we  must  mainly  defer.  We  have  found  that 
we  can  classify  them,  and  that  we  can  thus  introduce 
order  where  at  first  there  seemed  to  be  nothing  but  con- 
fusion. Have  we  then  now  simply  to  arrange  these 
manuscripts  upon  the  plan  laid  down,  and  to  take  from 
the  best  of  them  the  text  that  they  contain  ?  It  would 
be  so  were  they  the  only  authorities  with  which  we  have 
to  deal,  and  did  the  path  by  which  they  lead  us  carry 
us  back  as  far  as  the  time  when  the  sacred  autographs 
were  penned.  But  neither  of  these  is  the  case.  We 
have  already  seen  that  we  have  translations  of  the  Kew 
Testament  and  quotations  from  it  in  the  writings  of  the 
Fathers  more  ancient  than  any  manuscript  possessed  by 
us ;  and  we  have  seen  also  that  at  the  point  at  which 
our  manuscripts  stop  we  are  not  only  three  centuries 
from  the  age  of  the  Apostles,  but  that  between  us  and 


122  The  Principle  of  Grouping. 

tliem  there  lies  a  period  when  there  was  no  small  con- 
fusion of  the  text.  Nothing  remains  for  ns,  therefore, 
except  to  recall  our  other  witnesses,  that  we  may  hear 
what  they  also  have  to  say;  for,  although  it  is  true 
that  they  are  not  primary  authorities,  they  may  not  be 
neglected.  Is  not  this,  however,  to  re-introduce,  at  least 
to  a  large  extent,  the  old  confusion  which  we  persuaded 
ourselves  we  had  escaped  ?  At  first  sight  it  almost 
seems  as  if  it  were  so.  But  the  phenomenon  is  far  too 
interesting,  far  too  important,  to  permit  us  to  be  easily 
discouraged ;  and  we  look  about  to  see  if  there  is  nothing 
else  to  help  us  in  estimating  the  value  of  our  evidence 
when  it  is  presented  to  us,  not  in  one  of  its  parts  only, 
but  in  all  its  parts. 

We  turn,  then,  again  to  the  differences  of  readings  that 
we  have  before  us  about  the  beginning  of  the  fourth 
century,  and  we  are  met  by  the  fact  that  groups  of  these 
differences  appear  to  have  been  prevalent  in  some  parts 
of  the  Christian  world  more  than  in  others.  There  is 
by  no  means  unmingled  confusion,  a  total  want  of  order 
in  the  varieties  that  exist ;  but  there  is  a  certain 
method  according  to  which  the  differences  distribute 
themselves.  Thus,  for  example,  it  is  found  that  in 
Gaul,  Italy,  and  Africa  there  is  a  type  of  variation 
seemingly  different  from  that  which  prevails  at  Alex- 
andria or  Constantinople;  that  at  Constantinople  there 
is  a  type  of  text  bearing  a  marked  resemblance  to  what 
was  read  by  the  Fathers  who  flourished  at  Antioch  in 
Syria.  The  question  immediately  arises.  Do  the  facts 
bear  out  the  correctness  of  this  impression  ?     If  they 


The  Principle  of  Grouping.  123 

do,  it  can  hardly  fail  to  have  an  important  bearing  on 
our  inquiry,  because  it  is  clear  that,  given  two  contend- 
ing readings  of  a  text,  the  one  having  the  best  claim  on 
our  acceptance  will  be  the  one  which  has  maintained  its 
place  in  the  greatest  number  of  districts,  notwithstand- 
ing the  tendency  of  these  districts  to  introduce  changes 
of  their  own.  Its  permanence  amidst  so  much  around 
it  that  was  shifting  shows  its  vitality  and  powxr ;  and 
even  if  it  has  not  been  accepted  everywhere,  the  more 
widespread  the  diffusion,  in  other  words,  the  greater  the 
permanence,  the  greater  the  power.  We  must  look 
then  at  this  matter  somewhat  more  closely.  It  may  be 
described  as  the  principle  of  grouping. 

Had  the  copies  of  the  sacred  autographs  been  con- 
fined to  one  district  there  would  probably  have  been  no 
scope  for  this,  and  no  need  to  make  any  such  attempt. 
The  materials  and  the  need  of  grouping  both  arise 
when  these  copies  are  taken  into  other  lands,  are  tran- 
scribed there,  and  are  dispersed,  partly  it  may  be  in  the 
original,  but  mainly  in  translations.  The  inhabitants  of 
one  country  differ  from  those  of  another  in  thought,  in 
taste,  in  manner  of  expression,  in  occasional  choice  of 
words,  even  when  their  language  is  the  same.  These 
differences  are  strengthened  when  a  different  language 
is  spoken.  The  words  of  one  tongue  often  fail  to  cover 
exactly  the  same  field  of  thought  as  those  of  another ; 
and  when  we  have  to  reason  backwards  from  a  Syriac, 
an  Egyptian,  or  a  Latin  translation  to  a  Greek  sentence, 
it  may  well  happen  that  we  shall  not  always  be  led  to 
precisely  the  same  result. 


124  Tlie  Principle  of  Grouping, 

This,  however,  is  not  all.  The  circumstances  amidst 
which  the  work  of  transcription  is  undertaken  in  dif- 
ferent countries  also  differ.  In  one  there  may  be  but 
a  small  demand,  and  the  work  may  be  gone  about 
leisurely,  slowly,  and  in  a  scholarly  spirit.  In  another 
the  demand  may  be  much  larger,  and  there  may  be 
greater  haste  and  imperfection  in  its  supply.  There 
may  be  no  bad  faith.  All  may  be  done  in  the  strictest 
honour,  and  with  the  most  sincere  desire  to  produce 
faithful  copies  or  accurate  translations  of  the  original. 
The  influences  leading  to  change  may  work  quite  uncon- 
sciously in  the  minds  of  the  transcribers  or  translators. 
The  important  fact  is  that  they  are  there ;  and  that  it  is 
as  impossible  to  be  altogether  free  from  them  as  it  is  for 
a  succession  of  scribes  in  the  same  country  to  exhibit  a 
perfect  immunity  from  those  errors  of  transcription,  due 
to  human  frailty,  that  were  formerly  taken  notice  of  and 
illustrated.  The  effect  is  obvious.  In  different  districts 
of  the  world  different  groups  of  errors  will  become  pre- 
valent, and  the  manuscripts,  versions,  or  quotations  con- 
taining the  texts  erroneously  copied  will  present  a  cer- 
tain family  resemblance  to  one  another.  Thus,  for 
example,  in  John  ii.  3,  in  the  account  of  the  miracle  at 
Cana  of  Galilee,  we  read,  "  And  when  tliey  wanted  wine," 
or,  as  it  might  be  more  simply  and  literally  translated, 
"  And  when  wine  failed,  the  mother  of  Jesus  saith  unto 
him.  They  have  no  wine."  In  several  of  our  important 
authorities  we  find,  instead  of  these  words,  the  following, 
"  And  they  had  no  wine,  because  the  wine  of  the  mar- 
riage feast  was  finished.     Then  the  mother  of  Jesus  saith 


Tlie  Principle  of  Groujping.  125 

unto  him,  They  have  no  ^\"ine."  We  do  not  so  much 
ask  at  present  which  of  these  two  readings  deserves  the 
preference.  We  observe  rather  that  the  authority  for 
the  latter  is,  with  the  exception  of  one  Greek  manuscript, 
wholly  Latin.  It  was  mainly  confined  to  those  parts  of 
the  world  where  the  Latin  tongue  was  spoken.  It  had 
no  hold  either  of  the  Syriac  or  the  Greek  East. 

It  is  not  indeed  to  be  thought  that  the  grouping  now 
referred  to  can  be  strictly  carried  through  all  our 
authorities  as  to  the  text  of  Scripture.  We  cannot 
definitely  assign  them  all  to  particular  families.  Neither 
manuscripts  nor  translations  were  confined  to  any  one 
region  of  the  Church.  They  passed  from  country  to 
country  and  from  city  to  city  through  that  interchange 
of  letters,  books,  and  visits  which  forms  one  of  the 
most  interesting  characteristics  of  the  early  Christians. 
Mixed  manuscripts  thus  came  into  existence — manu- 
scripts showing  traces  of  different  districts,  and  bridging 
over  the  gulf  that  would  otherwise  have  separated  them. 
Yet  in  very  many  cases  the  lines  of  demarcation  are 
sufficiently  distinct  to  entitle  the  critic  to  speak  of  dif- 
ferent styles  of  text  corresponding  to  different  regions 
of  the  Church. 

Let  us  proceed  to  the  bearing  of  what  has  now  been 
said.     It  is  highly  important  in  the  following  respects. 

1.  In  the  first  place,  mere  mtmier  of  manuscripts 
belonging  to  any  group  is  of  comparatively  little  moment; 
because,  whatever  the  number  of  such  manuscripts,  they 
mainly  testify  to  the  one  manuscript  the  head  of  the 
local  family  from  which  they  sprang,  and  that  head  of 


126  The  Principle  of  Grouping. 

tlie  family  can  only  count  as  one.  Wherever,  therefore, 
we  have  reason  to  think  that  we  have  a  group  of  authori- 
ties, that  group  must  count  as  one  stream  of  evidence, 
without  reference  to  the  number  of  individuals  of  which 
it  is  composed. 

2.  In  the  second  place,  the  greater  the  number  of 
streams  of  evidence  flowing  from  different  quarters  of 
the  world  and  testifying  to  the  same  reading,  the  more 
likely  is  that  reading  to  be  correct.  This  is  something 
entirely  different  from  the  number  of  individual  manu- 
scripts, of  which  one  stream  may  exhibit  many  more 
than  another.  The  evidence  of  all  flowing  in  each  stream 
is  taken  as  a  whole ;  and  then  the  more  streams  we  have 
of  the  same  character  the  greater  the  confidence  with 
which  we  infer  that  the  reading  floating  on  their  surface 
comes  from  the  head  fountain  of  the  waters.  It  is  clear 
that  it  must  be  so.  How  do  we  know  that  any  reading 
is  absolutely  correct  ?  By  the  confluence  of  all  our 
streams.  "  In  the  beginning  was  the  Word,  and  the 
Word  was  with  God,  and  the  Word  was  God."  What 
is  it  that  assures  us  that  this  sublime  opening  of  the 
Gospel  of  St.  John  really  came  from  the  pen  of  the  be- 
loved disciple  ?  That  it  was  everywhere  and  at  all 
times  read.  In  every  region  of  the  earth  to  which  a 
manuscript  of  the  Gospel  was  taken  these  words  were 
copied  from  it  exactly  as  they  stand.  Gaul,  Italy, 
Africa,  Alexandria,  Palestine,  Syria,  Constantinople,  all 
read  them  as  we  read  them  now.  Many  another  text  in 
the  same  Gospel  underwent  great  and  different  changes. 
These  words  underwent  none ;  and  the  only  possible  ex- 


The  Princijple  of  Grouping.  127 

planation  is,  that  tliey  existed  in  tlie  Apostle's  auto- 
grapli.  The  same  principle  leads  to  the  just  preference 
of  two  agreeing  streams  of  evidence  to  one,  for  that 
agreement  is  a  testimony  to  the  fact  that,  at  a  date  an- 
terior to  the  decay  and  corruption  of  the  text,  the  reading 
given  was  more  widely  spread  abroad  than  any  other 
with  which  it  has  to  contend.  The  only  probable  explan- 
ation again  of  this  diffusion  is  that  the  reading  came 
from  the  original,  and  possessed  sufficient  power  to  resist 
the  influences  that  were  producing  change. 

Let  us  illustrate  what  has  been  said  by  a  reading  in 
John  i.  51.  There  we  find  the  Saviour  saying,  in  our 
English  version,  "Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you.  Here- 
after," or  rather,  From  henceforth  "ye  shall  see  heaven 
opened,  and  the  angels  of  God  ascending  and  descending 
upon  the  Son  of  Man."  The  words  "  From  henceforth  " 
are  found  in  one  of  the  leading  Greek  manuscripts,  in 
several  other  uncials,  in  the  whole  family  of  manuscripts 
of  a  later  date,  whose  headquarters  were  the  Byzantine 
Empire,  in  two  Latin  versions  of  a  later  type  than  the 
earliest,  in  the  Syriac,  and  in  two  or  three  of  the  later 
Fathers.  At  the  best,  therefore,  if  read  at  all  in  early 
times,  they  were  read  only  in  Syria,  and  in  Constanti- 
nople, which  was  dependent  upon  it.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  words  are  omitted  in  three  of  the  oldest  and  most 
valuable  Greek  manuscripts,  in  all  the  best  Latin  ver- 
sions, in  the  version  of  Lower  Egypt,  in  the  Armenian 
and  ^thiopic  versions,  and  in  some  of  the  most  valuable 
patristic  writings  that  we  possess.  We  have  thus  one 
region  of  the  Church  alone  against  all  the  rest,  and  that 


128  The  Princi^ple  of  Gronping. 

the  region  where  we  know  from  other  evidence  that 
manuscripts  underwent  most  change  in  the  hands  of 
hasty,  if  not  imperfectly  informed  scribes.  There  can  be 
no  doubt  that  the  reading  of  the  verse  without  them  is 
the  true  reading  of  what  the  Saviour  said ;  although,  if 
number  of  individual  manuscripts  were  to  be  considered, 
the  majority  in  their  favour  would  be  overwhelming.  It 
is  worth  while  to  observe  that,  in  this  case,  we  can  dis- 
cover without  much  difficulty  how  the  words  in  ques- 
tion got  their  way  into  the  text.  The  scribe  had  in  his 
mind  the  language  of  Jesus  in  Matt.  xxvi.  64,  "Jesus 
saith  unto  him.  Thou  hast  said  :  nevertheless,  I  say  unto 
you.  Hereafter,"  or  as  it  should  be,  From  henceforth  "ye 
shall  see  the  Son  of  Man  sitting  on  the  right  hand  of 
power,  and  coming  in  the  clouds  of  heaven."  The  two 
verses  have  a  great  similarity  of  tone.  "  From  hence- 
forth" was  met  with  in  the  last  and  most  familiar  one ;  it 
easily  slipped  into  the  first  and  less  familiar. 

We  add  only,  in  conclusion,  upon  this  point,  that  it 
does  not  matter,  though,  as  in  the  example  now  given, 
all  the  individuals  in  each  of  the  groups  which  har- 
monize upon  the  whole  do  not  bear  witness  to  what  we 
accept  as  true.  That  so  many  of  them  do  agree  has  to 
be  accounted  for,  and  the  only  explanation  being  that 
in  each  case  they  had  drawn  the  reading  from  some 
common  progenitor,  the  fact  that  these  progenitors  in 
different  regions  of  the  world  had,  at  a  much  earlier  date, 
borne  the  same  testimony,  is  a  presumption  of  the 
strongest  kind  that  they  correctly  represent  the  one 
original. 


CHAPTER  VIII 

DETEEMINATION  OF  THE  TEXT. — PART  I.. 

UR  witnesses  are  now  classified  and  grouped, 
and  we  have  to  turn  to  the  interesting  and 
important  task,  to  which  all  that  has  been 
hitherto  said  has  been  preparatory, — the 
hearing  of  the  evidence,  and  the  determination,  by  means 
of  it,  of  those  words  in  which  we  are  to  find  the  light 
of  life. 

At  the  point  at  which  we  stand  it  is  to  be  observed, 
that  we  suppose  ourselves  to  be  absolutely  ignorant  of 
the  words  of  the  New  Testament.  We  are  not  in  the 
position  of  one  who  has  that  volume  in  his  hands,  and 
who,  having  heard  that  the  reading  of  some  of  its  pas- 
sages is  disputed,  is  about  to  examine  a  number  of 
witnesses  as  to  what  they  have  to  say  upon  that  point. 
For  more  than  two  centuries  after  the  Reformation, 
indeed  down  to  the  third  decade  of  the  present  century, 
this  was  the  position  of  successive  editors  of  the  New 
Testament.  The  "Received  Text,"  as  it  was  called,  had 
acquired  such  authority,  that  the  utmost  they  ventured 
to  attempt  was  to  make  such  emendations  upon  it  as 


130  Determination  of  the  Text. 

seemed  to  be  required  by  the  ever-increasing  knowledge 
of  manuscripts  and  other  sources  of  evidence.  The 
greatest  advance  made  by  any  of  them  was  to  ask,  Is 
there  reason  to  depart  from  the  ordinary  reading,  and,  if 
there  was,  to  make  that  departure  without  hesitation  ? 
At  the  date,  however,  of  which  we  have  spoken,  one  of 
the  most  distinguished  of  the  noble  band  of  scholars 
who  have  devoted  themselves  to  inquiries  connected 
with  our  present  subject,  Professor  Lachmann  of  Berlin, 
took  another  and  decisive  step.  He  started  with  the 
question.  Is  there  any  reason  to  depart,  not  from  the 
Eeceived  Text,  but  from  the  '  readings  that  are  best 
established  ?  His  predecessors  might  have  shown  their 
modesty  by  adopting  no  new  reading  they  were  unable 
to  defend.  It  escaped  their  notice,  according  to  him, 
that  it  was  unreasonable  to  admit  any  reading  at  all  into 
the  text,  evidence  of  whose  value  they  had  not  ob- 
tained. They,  in  short,  had  made  the  "Eeceived  Text" 
their  point  of  departure.  He  threw  it  wholly  aside. 
He  would  gather  his  whole  New  Testament  text  from 
the  original  witnesses,  and  from  them  alone. 

This  principle,  undoubtedly  just,  is  now  universally 
accepted,  and  hence  the  interest  and  importance  of  the 
point  that  we  have  reached.  From  the  witnesses  whom 
we  suppose  to  be  before  us,  the  whole  text  of  our  New 
Testament  is  to  be  gathered. 

In  estimating  the  value  of  their  evidence  certain 
principles  or  rules  of  judging  must  be  taken  into  account. 
They  may  be  conveniently  divided  into  External  and 
Internal. 


Determination  of  the  Text.  131 

I.  Principles  of  External  Evidence.' 

1.  The  first  and  simplest  principle  by  wliicli  we  are 
to  be  guided  is,  that,  where  all  our  authorities  agree,  the 
evidence  must  be  accepted  as  conclusive.  It  is  needless 
to  enlarge  upon  this  principle,  which  can  admit  of  no 
dispute.  Depending  upon  these  authorities  alone  for 
our  text,  we  have  obviously  no  alternative  but  to  accept 
what  they  with  one  voice  proclaim  to  be  correct.  So 
much  of  the  New  Testament  is  guaranteed  to  us  upon 
this  principle  that  the  disputed  parts  form  only  an  ex- 
ceedingly small  portion  of  the  whole. 

2.  Witnesses  thoroughly  tested  in  the  manner  pre- 
viously explained  are  entitled  to  a  hearing  in  every  case 
equally  respectful.  It  may  be  true  that  an  ancient 
manuscript  possesses  a  certain  advantage  over  a  modern 
one  in  that,  having  been  less  frequently  copied,  it  has 
probably  escaped  some  of  the  changes  which  the  mere 
act  of  copying  is  certain  to  introduce.  Wherever,  there- 
fore, the  departure  of  a  recent  manuscript  from  the  read- 
ing of  the  older  appears  to  be  owing  to  frequency  of 
transcription,  the  latter  ought  to  be  deferred  to.  But 
when  the  difference  seems  to  have  no  connection  with 
this  source  of  error,  when  the  variation  is  so  distinct 
that  it  must  be  held  to  have  belonged  to  the  manuscript 
from  which  the  more  recent  one  was  copied,  it  is  impos- 
sible to  allow  that  the  greater  age  of  an  opponent  shall 
alone  decide  the  controversy  in  its  favour.  We  have 
tested  the  one  as  well  as  the  other  by  the  tests  with 
which  we  started  as  the  best  and  most  trustworthy  that 


132  Determination  of  the  Text. 

could  be  devised.  The  one  as  well  as  the  other  has 
stood  the  test,  and  is  therefore  not  to  be  undervalued 
because  it  may  be  written  in  cursive  rather  than  uncial 
letters,  or  may  be  marked  by  numerals  rather  than  the 
capital  letters  of  the  alphabet.  The  principle  of  the  rule 
is  evidently  indisputable,  but  it  is  not  unnecessary  to 
point  out  that  it  ought  to  be  adhered  to.  Any  one  con- 
sulting the  critical  apparatus,  the  lists  of  authorities, 
found  in  a  critical  edition  of  the  New  Testament,  will 
soon  learn  that  he  is  in  constant  danger  of  ascribing 
undue  weight  to  manuscripts  that  have  only  a  higher 
antiquity  or  a  more  imposing  notation  than  that  of 
many  others  to  commend  them. 

3.  In  manuscripts  thus  tested  the  element  of  number 
is  an  important  consideration.  For  it  will  be  observed 
that  we  liave  not  now  number  versus  authority,  the 
multitude  against  the  "  fit  though  few."  By  the  sup- 
position all  have  been  proved  credible  witnesses,  and 
although  even  then  there  will  be  many  minute  circum- 
stances leading  us  to  think  one  more  credible  than 
another,  yet  to  put  number  out  of  view  altogether  were 
to  neglect  the  principles  of  evidence  upon  which  judicial 
questions  are  settled  every  day.     But, 

4.  Mere  number  of  the  witnesses  in  general,  without 
regard  to  the  fact  of  their  being  or  not  being  tested,  is  of 
no  weight  whatever.  We  have  already  seen  that  the 
coming  forward  of  many  in  their  numbers  and  with  their 
unanimity  may  be  the  very  best  reason  for  rejecting  them 
all  without  compunction. 

5.  The  relative  weight  of  manuscripts,  versions,  and 


Determination  of  the  Text.  133 

citations  must  be  duly  observed.  However  true  it  may  be 
that  by  the  latter  two  branches  of  evidence  we  test  in 
no  small  degree  the  value  of  the  first,  it  is  not  the  less 
true  that  as  a  general  branch  of  evidence  the  first  is, 
when  attested,  entitled  to  the  preference  even  over  those  "^ 
by  which  it  has  been  tried.  The  circumstance,  however, 
that  it  is  tried  by  them  shows  that  there  are  certain 
cases  in  which  they  may  claim  to  bear  away  the  palm. 
Such  cases  must  be  carefully  adverted  to,  and  errors 
must  be  distinguished  into  their  different  classes,  as  for 
example  of  addition  or  omission,  when  we  would  know 
the  special  value  attaching  to  each  of  our  three  great 
classes  of  authorities. 

6.  In  judging  of  the  balance  of  evidence,  great  impor- 
tance is  to  be  attached  to  the  meeting  of  different  streams 
of  evidence,  to  the  concurrence,  that  is,  of  authorities 
from  different  quarters  of  the  world,  to  the  combination 
in  favour  of  the  same  reading  of  such  groups  as  were 
previously  described. 

7.  It  is  not  to  be  forgotten  that  if  any  of  these  groups 
combine  in  favour  of  what  we  have  reason  to  suppose 
to  be  the  more  ancient  text,  their  verdict  must  be  accepted 
as  conclusive.  We  have  already  seen  that  the  simple 
fact  that  a  reading  is  ancient  does  not  prove  it  to  be 
good.  It  may  be  a  presumption  in  its  favour,  but  that 
is  all.  But  when,  being  thus  ancient,  it  is  supported  by 
authorities  from  different  quarters  of  the  world ;  in  other 
words,  when  a  group  of  authorities  unite  in  favour  of 
what  we  can  otherwise  prove  to  be  ancient,  we  have 
exactly  the   consideration   added  that  was  wanting  to 


134  Determination  of  the  Text. 

prove  that  it  was  not  only  ancient  but  correct.  The 
wide  diffusion  of  the  ancient  reading  is  established; 
that" diffusion  was  owing  to  its  vitality;  and  vitality 
is  best  explained  by  the  supposition  of  originality  and 
truth. 

We  have  now  pointed  out  what  seem  to  us  the  most 
important  principles  of  external  evidence.  Other  writers 
have  sometimes  given  others,  or  have  arranged  them  in 
a  different  order.  Indeed  most  critics  who  endeavour  to 
edit  a  text  of  the  New  Testament  have  to  some  extent 
at  least  rules  or  principles  of  their  own. 

Before  passing  on  it  may  be  well  to  illustrate  in  a  few 
sentences  the  application,  in  part  at  least,  of  the  rules 
now  laid  down. 

We  take  a  strong  case  first,  the  famous  text  regarding 
the  three  heavenly  witnesses  in  1  John  v.  7,  8.  As  read 
in  our  English  Version  we  find  these  words,  a  portion  of 
which  we  shall  enclose  in  brackets,  "For  there  are  three 
that  bear  record  [in  heaven,  the  Father,  the  Word,  and 
the  Holy  Ghost ;  and  these  thr'ee  are  one.  And  there 
are  three  that  bear  witness  in  earth],  the  spirit,  and  the 
water,  and  the  blood;  and  these  three  agree  in  one." 
The  question  is.  Whether  the  words  enclosed  by  us  in 
brackets  are  genuine,  or  whether  the  text  ought  not 
rather  simply  to  read,  "For  there  are  three  that  bear 
record,  the  spirit,  the  water,  and  the  blood,  and  these 
three  agree  in  one." 

With  the  exception  of  two  manuscripts,  the  one 
belonging  to  the  fifteenth,  and  the  other  to  the  sixteenth 
century,  the  whole  body  of  Greek  manuscript  evidence 


Determination  of  the  Text.  135 

rejects  the  bracketed  words  in  the  above  verses.  These 
two  manuscripts  also  do  not  stand  the  tests  by  which 
alone  they  can  be  shown  to  be  worthy  of  much  regard. 
Manuscript  evidence  could  not  be  more  decisive.  We 
turn  to  versions.  The  suspicious  words  are  wanting  in 
every  version  except  the  Vulgate,  nearly  all  the  manu- 
scripts of  which  exhibit  them,  those  failing  to  do  so 
being  however  generally  recognized  as  the  oldest  and 
best.  Even  where  given,  too,  they  are  given  with  very 
considerable  variations  ;  and  such  variations  are  always 
a  proof  of  the  doubtfulness  of  the  authorities  whence 
the  words  were  taken.  The  evidence  of  versions  is  here 
as  decided  as  that  of  Greek  manuscripts.  Lastly,  we 
look  at  citations  from  the  Fathers.  No  Greek  Father  is 
known  to  quote  the  passage,  while  several  of  the  most 
important,  in  arguing  on  the  subject  of  the  Trinity,  to 
which  it  has  so  direct  a  relation,  refer  both  to  what 
precedes  and  to  what  follows,  but  do  not  make  the 
slightest  allusion  to  the  disputed  words.  Nothing  could 
more  clearly  show  that  they  were  unacquainted  with 
them.  The  most  ancient  and  eminent  Latin  Fathers 
have  likewise  no  knowledge  of  the  words,  and  it  is  only 
in  some  of  the  later  and  more  unimportant  that  they 
are  discovered.  The  evidence  of  citations  clearly  ac- 
companies that  of  manuscripts  and  versions. 

In  a  case  such  as  this  it  is  obvious  too,  from  what  has 
been  said,  that  all  our  streams  of  evidence  combine, 
and  that  even  in  point  of  numbers  the  vast  majority  of 
the  witnesses,  including  every  one  proved  and  tested,  are 
on  one  side.     The  application  of  every  rule  or  principle 


136  Determination  of  the  Text. 

of  External  Evidence  leads  to  the  exclusion  of  the  dis- 
puted words. 

We  take  another  case,  Acts  viii.  37.  In  our  English 
Version  we  read,  "And  Philip  said,  If  thou  helievest 
with  all  thine  heart,  thou  mayest.  And  he  answered 
and  said,  I  believe  that  Jesus  is  the  Son  of  God."  The 
question  is.  Whether  these  words  ought  to  stand  in  the 
text,  or  to  be  excluded  from  it  ? 

They  are  wanting  in  four  out  of  the  five  chief  witnesses 
described  in  the  earlier  part  of  this  book :  of  the  fifth 
nothing  can  be  said,  that  portion  of  the  manuscript 
having  been  unfortunately  lost.  They  are  wanting  also 
in  a  large  number  of  other  manuscripts.  They  are 
found  in  one  uncial  manuscript  alone,  although  in  a 
considerable  number  of  cursives.  The  case  is  by  no 
means  so  decided  as  the  last ;  but  our  principles  hardly 
admit  of  any  other  conclusion  than  one  unfavourable  to 
the  presence  of  the  words.  We  turn  to  versions.  The 
verse  is  wanting  in  the  best  codices  of  the  Vulgate,  in 
two  Syriac  versions,  in  the  versions  of  both  Upper  and 
Lower  Egypt,  and  in  the  ^thiopic.  It  is  found  in  a 
codex  of  the  Vulgate  as  well  as  in  its  printed  text,  in 
one  of  the  Syriac  versions,  though  there  marked  with  an 
asterisk,  and  in  the  Armenian.  Our  first  conclusion 
unfavourable  to  the  verse  is  thus  so  far  confirmed. 
Lastly,  we  look  at  citations  from  the  Fathers.  The 
verse  was  known  to  one  or  two  of  the  Latin  Fathers, 
but  we  have  positive  assurance  that  it  was  not  re- 
cognized in  any  of  the  writings  of  Greek  Fathers 
that    have   reached  us,   until  we   come   to   one  who 


Determination  of  the  Text.  137 

flourished  in  the  eleventh,  and  another  who  belongs  to 
the  twelfth  century.  That  it  should  appear  in  the 
writings  of  the  former  need  not  surprise  us,  when  we 
remember  that  the  Latin  versions  are  the  chief  authority 
for  the  words.  That  it  should  be  wanting  in  the  writ- 
ings of  the  latter  is  strong  confirmatory  evidence  that  it 
was  unknown  in  Greek.  Here  again,  therefore,  the 
evidence  of  citations  leads  to  the  same  conclusion  as 
that  of  manuscripts  and  versions. 

The  argument  however  is  not  in  the  present  instance 
quite  so  strong  as  in  the  last.  We  ask  therefore  with 
more  interest  than  then,  "What  is  the  teaching  of  our 
groups  of  witnesses  ?  In  one  district  of  the  world  only 
does  the  verse  appear  to  have  been  read,  and  that  a 
district  where  we  know  from  other  evidence  that  there 
was  a  strong  tendency  to  interpolate.  Our  groups  there- 
fore deliver  the  same  sentence  as  our  individual  witnesses. 
Finally,  the  number  of  tested  witnesses  against  the 
words  is  greater  than  that  upon  their  side.  We  sum 
up  the  evidence  as  a  whole,  and  there  can  be  no  doubt 
that  the  verdict  ought  to  be  for  the  exclusion  of  the  verse. 


CHAPTEE  TX. 

DETERMINATION  OF  THE  TEXT. — PART  II. 

RAVING  considered  those  principles  of  Ex- 
ternal Evidence  by  which  the  various  read- 
ings of  Scripture  are  to  be  judged,  it  remains 
for  us  to  turn  our  thoughts  to  those  prin- 
ciples of  Internal  Evidence  which  are  neither  less  neces- 
sary nor  important. 

II.  Principles  of  Internal  Evidence. 

Were  the  External  Evidence  on  behalf  of  a  parti- 
cular reading  in  every  case  complete  and  satisfactory,  we 
should  have  little  occasion  to  depend  on  anything  but 
it.  The  contest  would  at  once  be  settled  by  an  over- 
whelming balance  of  testimony,  either  on  the  one  side  or 
on  the  other.  It  is  rare,  however,  to  find  this  in  any  dis- 
puted reading  of  much  interest  or  importance.  There  is 
then  almost  always  a  decided  difference  of  testimony. 
Weighty  arguments  on  their  right  to  have  a  place  in 
the  text  are  urged  by  different  claimants,  and  the 
balance  of  external  authority  is  not  unfrequently  nearly 
equal.  The  application  of  Internal  Evidence  thus 
becomes  indispensable. 


Determination  of  the  Text.  139 

It  is  so  in  that  ordinary  administration  of  law,  tlie 
processes  of  which,  as  we  have  seen,  afford  the  "best 
analogy  to  the  course  which  the  Biblical  critic  has  to 
pursue.  A  judge  can  rarely,  if  ever,  settle  a  dispute 
between  two  parties  by  external  evidence  alone.  It  is 
the  mind  that  sees,  and  not  the  eye.  It  is  the  mind 
that  hears,  and  not  the  ear ;  and  according  to  the  light 
in  which  different  assertions  present  themselves  to  the 
judge's  mind  will  be  the  judgment  that  he  forms.  The 
probabilities  of  the  case,  and  the  internal  coherence  of 
the  narrative,  must  always  influence  his  decision ;  and 
his  verdict  is  to  be  viewed  as  the  hypothesis  that  takes 
up  and  explains  all  the  phenomena  connected  with  the 
dispute.  It  is  true  that  this  necessity  of  reasoning  on 
probabilities  may  often  degenerate  into  mere  subjec- 
tivity or  wilfulness,  and  that  a  judge  may  carry  out 
some  theory  of  his  own  in  such  a  manner  as  to  set 
at  naught  well-established  facts ;  but  therein  lies  the 
highest  trial  of  the  judge's  skill.  Therein  judicial  tact, 
ability,  genius  prove  their  infinite  superiority  to  mere 
mechanical  administration.  For  ten  men  who  can  learn 
rules,  and  apply  them  with  accuracy  to  a  case  before 
them,  we  may  be  thankful  to  find  one  who,  not  acting 
apart  from  rule,  can  yet  stand  superior  to  rule,  and  can 
mould,  in  the  fire  of  his  own  genius,  both  the  external 
facts  and  the  internal  probabilities  into  one  harmonious 
whole.  It  is  the  same  in  the  criticism  of  the  text  of 
Scripture.  External  evidence  is  not  only  valuable ;  it 
forms  the  very  ground  of  our  proceedings ;  it  sets  before 
us  the  facts  of  which  we  are  to  judge.     But  then  we 


140  Determination  of  the  Text. 

must  judge.  The  danger  to  wliicli  we  are  exposed  of 
giving  way  to  prepossessions,  to  subjective  feelings, 
must  be  met ;  and  in  the  establishing  of  sound  general 
principles,  in  the  cultivation  of  a  sound  mind,  lies  the 
critic's  power.  This  much  at  least  is  certain,  that  no 
editor  of  the  Greek  text  of  the  New  Testament,  except 
one,  who  gave  it  distinctly  to  be  understood  that  his 
aim  was  special  and  provisional  in  its  character,  has 
attempted  to  construct  his  text  upon  grounds  of  external 
authority  alone.  Over  and  above  such  grounds,  the 
resort  to  internal  evidence  has  been  always  found  to  be 
necessary. 

To  these  principles  of  Internal  Evidence  then  we 
now  proceed.     The  more  important  are  the  following: — 

1.  That  reading  is  to  be  preferred  which  seems  to 
have  suggested  the  others,  or  out  of  which  it  is  most 
easy  to  suppose  that  the  others  would  arise.  The 
reason  of  the  rule  is  obvious.  By  the  supposition  we 
have  two  or  three  different  readings  of  a  passage,  with 
external  evidence  not  sufficiently  precise  to  remove  all 
doubt  as  to  which  the  preference  is  due.  Our  first 
object  must  evidently  be  to  determine  as  far  as  we 
can  their  history,  in  other  words,  to  ask  how  they 
severally  arose.  In  doing  so  it  is  reasonable  to  conclude 
that  the  reading  by  whose  existence  the  origin  of  the 
others  is  most  easily  explained  is  the  correct  one.  Thu's, 
for  example — 

In  John  i.  37  we  have  three  readings  consisting  in 
three  different  arrangements  of  the  same  words.  One  of 
these  gives  the   translation    of    our   English   Version, 


Determination  of  the  Text.  141 

"And  the  two  disciples  heard  Him  speak,  and  they 
followed  Jesus."  Another  gives  the  translation,  "  And 
His  two  disciples  heard  Him  speak,  and  they  followed 
Jesus."  The  third  puts  the  pronoun  in  such  a  position 
in  the  Greek  that  the  meaning  is  ambiguous ;  it  might 
be  either  of  the  two  just  mentioned.  Which  of  the 
three  may  be  best  regarded  as  the  parent  of  the  other 
two  ?  Not  the  first ;  for  there  was  nothing  to  make  a 
scribe  naturally  slip  into  the  second,  while  the  ambiguity 
of  the  third  is  precisely  what  he  would  avoid.  Not  the 
second,  for  with  it  before  him  a  scribe  would  be  under 
no  temptation  to  change  it  to  the  first,  and  as  before,  the 
ambiguity  of  the  third  would  prevent  his  thinking  of  it. 
The  third,  however,  at  once  meets  the  necessities  of  the 
case.  It  is  ambiguous.  One  scribe  therefore,  who 
viewed  it  in  the  first  light,  put  down  the  words  in  the 
order  there  given.  Another,  who  viewed  it  in  the 
second  light,  made  the  order  correspond  to  his  im- 
pression of  the  sense.  The  third  then  is  most  probably 
the  true  reading. 

Another  illustration  of  this  rule  is  taken  by  Dr. 
Davidson  from  the  celebrated  text  in  1  Tim.  iii.  16,  and 
it  is  so  suitable  to  the  purpose  that  we  shall  again  use 
it  here.  Three  readings  meet  us  in  the  first  clause  of 
that  verse,  that  of  our  English  version,  "  Great  is  the 
mystery  of  godliness,  God  was  manifest  in  the  flesh,"  or 
rather,  "  was  manifested  in  flesh  ;"  "  who  was  manifested 
in  flesh ; "  "  which  was  manifested  in  flesh."  The 
external  evidence  in  favour  of  one  of  these  rather  than 
the  others  is  no  doubt  strong,  but  it  is  not  so  over- 


142  Determination  of  the  Text. 

whelming  as  to  make  us  independent  of  the  probabilities 
of  the  case.  We  ask  then,  How  does  our  present  rule 
apply?  Let  us  suppose  that  "God"  was  the  original 
reading.  It  is  difficult  to  imagine  how,  with  a  reading 
the  sense  of  which  is  in  strict  conformity  with  the 
teaching  of  the  New  Testament,  a  scribe  should  think  of 
substituting  "  who,"  which,  it  will  be  observed,  is  then 
a  relative  without  an  antecedent.  It  is  still  more 
difficult  to  imagine  how  the  important  word  "  God " 
could  pass  into  the  neuter  relative  "which."  The  word 
"mystery"  no  doubt  supplies  an  antecedent  in  this  latter 
case,  but  the  change  is  too  great  to  have  been  made  inad- 
vertently. Again,  let  us  suppose  that  "which"  was  the 
original,  it  could  neither  pass  easily  into  "who"  without 
an  antecedent  while  itself  has  one,  nor  into  "  God,"  which 
involves  a  change  of  the  greatest  magnitude.  Finally, 
let  us  suppose  that  the  original  reading  was  "  who."  We 
see  at  once,  even  without  taking  into  account  some  parti- 
culars connected  with  the  style  of  writing  which  greatly 
strengthen  the  inference,  how  it  could  pass  into  "  God." 
"God  manifest  in  flesh"  was  known  to  be  "the  great 
mystery  of  godliness."  It  was  most  natural  to  express  it. 
In  the  hands  of  another  scribe  "who"  might  pass  with 
equal  ease  into  "which."  The  change  of  one  letter  only  was 
involved,  the  sense  was  not  altered,  an  antecedent  was 
obtained  where  the  want  of  one  could  not  fail  to  be  felt. 
"Who"  therefore,  as  giving  rise  most  simply  to  the  other 
two,  is  the  true  reading.  It  is  interesting  to  observe  in 
connection  with  this  case,  that,  after  long  and  keen  dis- 
cussions, scholars  are  now  generally  agreed  that  even 


Determination  of  the  Text.  143 

external  evidence,  when  at  least  we  depend  mainly  on 
those  authorities  whose  high  importance  we  have  advo- 
cated in  these  pages,  leads  to  the  same  conclusion.  We 
have  thus  our  confidence  in  the  soundness  of  what  has 
been  said  both  as  to  them  and  as  to  our  present  rule 
much  strengthened. 

2.  A  second  most  important  and  universally  recognized 
rule  of  Internal  Evidence  is  that  the  more  difficult  reading 
is  to  be  preferred  to  the  more  easy.  The  critic,  (Bengel), 
not  less  distinguished  for  his  piety  than  his  talents,  who 
first  suggested  this  rule,  has  himself  said  that  he  regards 
it  as  but  one  application  of  the  far  wider  principle,  that 
good  is  difficult  and  evil  easy  of  attainment.  The  reason 
of  the  rule  is  obvious.  A  scribe  was  far  more  likely 
to  substitute  an  easy  for  a  difficult  than  a  difficult  for  an 
easy  reading.  In  speaking  in  the  earlier  part  of  this 
volume  of  the  causes  of  various  readings,  allusion  was 
made  to  the  point  now  before  us.  But  if,  as  then  ex- 
plained, a  scribe  was  apt  in  copying  a  manuscript  to 
substitute  a  simple  for  a  hard  expression,  the  converse 
must  hold  good  that,  in  restoring  the  true  text  in  cases  of 
dispute,  the  hard  is  entitled  to  the  preference.  Let  us 
illustrate  what  has  been  said  by  one  or  two  simple 
examples  of  different  classes  belonging  to  the  one 
general  principle. 

(1)  A  reading  at  first  sight  obscure  is  to  be  preferred 
to  one  that  is  plain  and  easily  understood.  Thus,  in 
John  vii.  39,  we  read  in  our  English  Version,  "  Eor  the 
Holy  Ghost  was  not  yet  given,  because  that  Jesus  was 
not  yet  glorified."     It  wiU  be  observed  that  the  word 


144  Determination  of  the  Text. 

"^iven"  is  in  italic  letters,  showing  that  it  did  not  exist 
in  the  Greek  text  from  which  our  version  was  taken,  and 
many  most  important  authorities  present  this  as  the 
true  reading.  Many  others  however  add  the  Greek 
word  for  "  given,"  and  we  have  to  decide  between  them. 
Our  present  rule  comes  to  our  aid.  When  we  read  without 
the  "given"  the  text  is  much  more  difficult  to  under- 
stand than  when  we  read  with  it.  A  scribe,  therefore, 
was  less  likely  to  omit  it  if  he  found  it  in  the  text  before 
him  than  to  insert  it  if  it  was  not  there.  The  conclusion 
is  that  in  the  original  it  probably  did  not  exist. 

(2)  A  reading  presenting  a  historical  difficulty  is  to  be 
preferred  to  one  from  which  the  difficulty  is  removed. 
Thus,  in  Mark  ii.  26,  we  read  in  our  English  Bibles  of 
David,  "how  he  entered  into  the  house  of  God  in  the 
days  of  Abiathar  the  high-priest."  Various  important 
authorities,  however,  omit  these  last  words  altogether, 
while  others,  retaining  them,  substitute  the  word  "priest" 
for  "  high-priest."  Both  changes  obviate  the  serious 
difficulty  arising  from  a  comparison  of  this  j)assage  with 
1  Samuel  xxi.  1,  where  the  incident  in  David's  life  here 
referred  to  is  related  in  the  words,  "Then  came  David 
to  Nob,  to  Ahimelech  the  priest."  Precisely  on  that 
ground,  however,  are  these  authorities  to  be  suspected. 
A  scribe  knowing  the  difficulty  would  be  much  more 
ready  to  omit  them  if  they  had  a  place  in  his  text  than 
to  insert  them  if  they  had  not. 

(3)  A  reading  in  one  Gospel  which  seems  to  convey 
a  sense  different  from  that  of  a  parallel  passage  in 
another  Gospel  is  to  be  preferred  to  one  which  makes 


Determination  of  the  Text.  145 

the  two  Gospels  strictly  harmonize.  Thus  in  Matt.  ix. 
13  we  read, "  Eor  I  am  not  come  to  call  the  righteous,  but 
sinners  to  repentance."  The  last  two  words,  however, 
"  to  repentance,"  are  frequently  omitted.  Shall  we  read 
them,  or  shall  we  not?  Looking  at  the  (j^uestion  for  the 
present  only  in  the  light  of  Internal  Evidence,  we  liave 
to  consider  that  the  words  are  found  in  the  parallel 
passage,  Luke  v.  37,  where  they  are  certainly  genuine. 
The  probability  is,  that  from  that  text  they  found  their 
way  into  St.  Matthew. 

We  notice  only  one  additional  rule  of  Internal  Evi- 
dence. 

3.  The  style  of  writing  characteristic  of  particular 
writers,  or  what  we  know  of  their  modes  of  thought,  is  to 
be  taken  into  account  in  judging  of  the  various  readings 
of  their  text.  Thus  in  John  xiii.  24  we  read  in  our 
Authorized  Version,  "  Simon  Peter  therefore  beckoned  to 
him  that  lie  should  ask  who  it  should  be  of  whom  He 
spake."  But  there  is  much  authority  for  Greek  words 
that  give  us  the  translation,  "Simon  Peter  therefore 
beckoneth  to  him,  and  saith  to  him.  Tell  us  who  it  is  of 
whom  He  speaketh."  The  former  reading  requires  the 
verb  "should  be"  to  be  in  the  Greek  optative  mood;  but 
St.  John  never  uses  the  optative.  It  is  not  likely  there- 
fore that  he  would  depart  on  the  present  occasion  from 
his  usual  practice:  and  the  last  of  the  two  readings 
mentioned  thus  finds  corroborative  evidence  in  its 
support. 

Or,  let  us  take  an  example  in  which  mode  of  thought 
rather  than  merely  literary  style  becomes  the  object  oi 

K 


146  Determination  of  the  Text. 

consideration.  John  vi.  11,  formerly  considered  in 
another  aspect,  will  supply  an  illustration.  The  question 
there,  it  will  be  remembered,  is  as  to  the  omission  of 
certain  words,  the  effect  of  omitting  which  is  to  represent 
Jesus  Himself  as  distributing  the  bread  to  the  multitude, 
while  the  common  reading  brings  in  the  intervention  of 
the  disciples.  It  is  disputed  which  of  these  two  readings 
is  tlie  right  one.  Let  us  bear  in  mind  that  the  great 
object  of  S.  John's  Gospel  is  to  set  forth  the  glory  of  the 
Eedeemer,  to  present  Him  to  us  in  His  single  and 
unapproachable  majesty  as  the  Giver  of  all  good,  and  we 
are  at  once  led  to  conclude  that  the  reading  which 
favours  this  idea  is  most  likely  to  be  correct.  It  is 
needless  to  do  more  than  say  that  either  reading  is 
equally  consistent  with  the  facts  of  the  case.  There  is 
simply  a  slight  difference  in  the  point  of  view  from 
which  the  writer  speaks. 

Other  rules  of  Internal  Evidence  are  given  by 
different  writers  additional  to  those  now  mentioned. 
But  even  were  they  of  more  value  than  they  are,  we  have 
said  enough  to  convey  to  our  readers  an  impression  of 
the  character  of  that  part  of  the  New  Testament  critic's 
work  that  is  now  before  us. 

It  has  only  to  be  observed,  in  conclusion,  regarding 
these  rules,  that  each  may  easily  be  pushed  too  far,  and 
may  be  used  by  the  critic  to  reach  his  conclusion  with 
too  great  rapidity.  It  may  well  happen  in  many  a  case 
that  the  reading  which  seems  most  naturally  to  present 
itself  to  us  as  the  parent  of  the  others  is  not  really  so ; 
that  the  plain  reading  may  have  been,  by  the  ignorance  of 


Dete7'mination  of  the  Text.  147 

some  scribe,  transformed  into  the  obscure  instead  of  the 
obscure  into  the  plain ;  that  from  the  same  cause  a  his- 
torical difficulty  may  have  found  its  way  into  a  copy  when 
there  was  none  in  the  original ;  tliat  parallel  passages 
which  really  correspond  may  have  been  brought  to  differ, 
instead  of  parallels  that  differ  having  been  brought  to 
correspond ;  that  a  writer  may  at  times  use  a  method  of 
expression  different  from  his  common  one.  All  these 
things  are  possible,  and  the  too  rigid  application  of  any 
one  rule  might  thus  easily  betray  us.  The  lesson  to  be 
learned  is  one  of  caution,  and  that  probabilities  must  be 
balanced  one  against  another  if  we  would  hope  to  reach 
a  conclusion  on  all  sides  capable  of  defence. 

Finally,  it  has  to  be  noted  that  rules  such  as  those  we 
have  been  considering  must  never  be  so  applied  as  to 
overbear  External  Evidence.  They  are  not  guides  in  all 
cases,  but  helps  in  cases  of  difficulty.  They  aid  in 
determining  our  scales  to  one  side  rather  than  another, 
when,  but  for  them,  the  balance  would  be  too  equally 
poised  or  too  uncertain.  Even  when  not  absolutely 
needed,  they  often  confirm  the  verdict  drawn  forth  by 
External  Evidence  alone ;  and,  in  doing  so,  leave  no 
doubt  upon  our  minds  that  we  have  the  very  words 
before  us  in  which  the  Almighty  revealed  His  will  to 
man. 


CHAPTEE  X. 

GENERAL   SUMMARY. 


|]Sr  the  two  previous  chapters  we  have  con- 
sidered the  leading  principles  or  rules  by 
which  we  are  to  be  guided  in  estimating  the 
weight  due  to  the  evidence  laid  before  us, 
with  respect  to  disputed  readings  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, One  or  two  general  remarks  may  fitly  close  the 
subject. 

1.  Such  definite  principles  as  those  that  have  been 
laid  down  are  absolutely  essential  to  the  right  prose- 
cution of  the  task  of  which  we  have  been  speaking. 
No  task  can  be  named  in  which  there  is  greater  danger 
of  hasty  or  haphazard  judgments,  of  judgments  founded 
upon  prejudice  or  determined  by  inclination.  And  cer- 
tainly none  can  be  named  in  which  we  are  more  bound 
to  avoid  with  the  utmost  care  every  influence  of  the 
kind,  and  to  come  to  our  conclusion  only  by  steps,  every 
one  of  which  has  been  taken  with  the  utmost  delibera- 
tion, and  in  a  way  that  we  feel  ourselves  able  to  defend. 
Our  rules  are  a  valuable  aid  in  enabling  us  to  do  so. 
They  are  not  arbitrary.     They  are  founded  upon  a  wide 


Genercd  Summary.  149 

induction  of  particulars.  They  shape  themselves  ac- 
cordino"  to  reason  and  the  nature  of  the  case.  The 
knowledo-e  of  them  thus  directs  us  to  a  hioher  and  more 
correct  exercise  of  our  powers  than  we  could  have  made 
without  them.  We  are  taught  to  avoid  many  mistakes 
into  which  we  might  otherwise  fall.  We  gain  the 
feeling  of  security  that  belongs  not  to  instinct  but  to 
intelligence ;  and  even  where  ou.r  rules  are  insufficient 
of  themselves  to  lead  us  to  our  verdict,  they  indicate 
certain  principles  which  the  verdict,  when  we  reach  it, 
must  not  contravene. 

2.  They  are  not  to  be  thought  of  only  as  individual 
rules,  to  be  applied  one  at  one  time  and  another  at 
another,  in  an  outward  and  formal  manner.  It  may 
often  happen,  no  doubt,  that  one  is  sufficient  for  our 
purpose.  But  the  instances  are  far  more  frequent  where 
many  or  even  all  of  them  must  be  applied.  They  must 
be  held  therefore  in  combination.  They  must  thoroughly 
penetrate  and  pervade  the  mind,  so  as  to  exercise  a 
modifying  and  restraining  influence  upon  each  other, 
and  to  be  ready  for  use,  either  singly  or  in  ever-varying 
combinations,  according  to  the  nature  of  each  particular 
case. 

Nothing  indeed  will  force  itself  more  upon  the  mind 
of  the  textual  critic  of  the  New  Testament,  as  he 
pursues  his  labours,  than  the  impossibility  of  coming  to 
a  satisfactory  conclusion  in  innumerable  cases  of  dispute 
by  the  mere  reckoning  up  of  witnesses,  or  such  mere 
calculations  of  probability  as  formal  rules  supply.  The 
evidence  is  so  large  in  quantity,  the  witnesses  that  agree 


150  General  Summary. 

as  to  one  text  so  often  differ  as  to  another,  the  internal 
considerations  that  must  be  taken  into  account  strike 
different  minds,  and  even  the  same  mind  at  different 
times,  in  such  a  different  way,  that  anything  like  a  fixed 
mechanical  application  of  rules  will  be  found  in  practice 
to  be  impossible.  Every  particular  case  needs  to  be 
considered  in  itself.  Every  witness  needs  to  be  weighed 
not  simply  as  a  whole  but  in  the  particular  book  in 
which  the  text  under  examination  occurs.  Every  sug- 
gestion arising  from  internal  probabilities  needs  to  be 
balanced  by  its  opposite.  The  history  of  all  the  changes 
that  have  taken  place  on  the  original  reading  must  as  far 
as  possible  be  discovered,  so  that  that  original  reading, 
when  decided  on,  shall  contain  in  itself  a  solution  of  the 
problem,  How  what  was  one  at  the  first  came  to  assume 
so  many  varying  forms  in  different  countries  and  at  the 
hands  of  successive  scribes. 

All  this,  it  is  evident,  demands  extensive  knowledge, 
great  calmness  and  impartiality  of  judgment,  and  the  tact 
which,  when  not  a  happy  natural  endowment,  can  be 
gained  only  by  long  practical  experience.  In  point  of 
fact,  accordingly,  successful  editors  of  the  text  of  the 
New  Testament  have  been  very  few  in  number.  Had 
the  work  been  one  of  formal  rule  they  would  have  been 
many;  but  the  demands  which  it  makes  are  so  great  that 
a  comparatively  small  number  have  attempted  it,  and 
of  these  only  one  or  two  have  gained  a  lasting  fame. 

3.  Yet  it  does  not  follow  that  the  ordinary  minister 
of  the  Gospel,  the  student  of  divinity,  or  even  the  cul- 
tivated private   Christian,   ought   to   leave  the  whole 


General  Summary.  151 

matter  of  decidino-  on  the  text  of  the  New  Testament  in 
the  hands  of  the  few  who  can  devote  to  it  the  whole 
labour  of  their  lives,  and  feel  that  even  that  is  too  little 
to  accomplish  what  they  undertake.  Where  we  cannot 
discover  we  may  yet  follow  with  delight  the  discoveries 
of  others.  Where  w^e  cannot  make  original  suggestions 
we  can  in  a  great  degree  estimate  the  value  of  sugges- 
tions that  are  made  to  us.  Where  we  cannot  combine 
the  steps  of  an  intricate  proposition,  we  can  judge  of  the 
accuracy  of  the  combination  set  before  us.  We  can 
analyze  where  we  cannot  create,  and  verify  where  we 
cannot  produce.  In  so  doing,  we  share  at  least  some 
part  of  the  pleasure  experienced  by  creative  minds  ;  we 
enter  into  fellowship  with  them ;  we  learn  to  know  the 
principles  upon  which  they  work ;  and  we  catch, 
although  it  may  be  afar  off",  some  of  the  gleams  of  their 
inspiration.  Nor  is  our  imperfect  knowledge  without 
even  a  wholesome  influence  upon  them.  It  is  a  check 
to  what  might  otherwise  be  their  onesidedness.  It 
spurs  them  to  exertion  and  rewards  their  toil. 

No  mistake  therefore  can  be  greater  than  to  think 
that,  because  the  private  Christian  cannot  do  all  in  the 
work  of  textual  criticism,  he  should  do  nothing.  If, 
by  studying  its  resources,  its  aims,  and  its  principles,  he 
gain  no  more  than  the  conviction  that  it  is  really  a 
science,  the  gain  will  be  of  the  highest  advantage  botli 
to  himself  and  to  the  Church  of  Christ.  With  this 
confidence  we  now  proceed  to  the  third  and  last  division 
of  our  subject. 


PART  THIRD. 

RESULTS. 


PART   THIRD. 
RESULTS. 


CHAPTEE   I. 

EFFECT  PRODUCED  BY  TEXTUAL  CRITICISM  UPON  IMPORTANT 
TEXTS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

jAVING  examined  the  principles  upon  which 
the  text  of  the  New  Testament  is  to  be 
determined,  it  may  be  satisfactory  to  our 
readers  if  we  set  before  them  the  most  im- 
portant results  which  How  from  an  application  of  these 
principles.  For  this  purpose,  we  shall,  in  the  first  place, 
direct  attention  to  a  few  texts  peculiarly  interesting  on 
doctrinal  or  other  grounds,  and  shall  briefly  discuss  the 
readings  which  in  these  cases  seem  to  have  the  best  claim 
to  be  accepted.  To  this  the  present  chapter  will  be  de- 
voted. We  shall  then,  in  the  chapter  which  follows,  pass 
successively  through  the  books  of  the  New  Testament, 
and  note  in  each  chapter,  without  entering  into  argument, 
all  the  changes  of  any  importance  which  require  to  be 
made  in  the  received  text.  Our  readers  will  thus  have 
before  tliem  the  leading  "  results  "  of  textual  criticism. 


156        Effect  'produced  hj  Textual  Criticism  upon 

Matthew  xi.  19. 

In  the  last  clause  of  this  verse  we  read  in  the  received 
text,  "  But  Wisdom  is  justified  of  her  children,"  and  this 
is  the  undoubted  reading  in  the  parallel  passage  in  Luke 
vii.  35,  except  that  the  word  "  all "  is  inserted  there, 
"  But  Wisdom  is  justified  of  all  her  children."  In  the 
passage  before  us,  however,  a  very  important  variation 
claims  attention,  "  But  Wisdom  is  justified  of  "  or  "  by 
her  works."  The  evidence  in  favour  of  the  received 
reading  is  strong — B  as  corrected  by  a  later  hand,  all 
uncial  manuscripts  except  two,  nearly  all  later  manu- 
scripts, most  of  the  old  Latin  versions,  the  Vulgate,  the 
Curetonian  Syriac,  the  Gothic,  and  the  Armenian  as 
edited.  Two  or  three  Fathers  also  bear  similar  testi- 
mony, although  in  the  case  of  the  two  most  ancient  it  is 
doubtful  whether  their  quotations  may  not  be  taken  from 
the  Gospel  of  St.  Luke.  On  the  other  side  we  have 
two  uncial  manuscripts,  and  these  the  most  ancient 
and  valuable  possessed  by  us  b^  and  B,  one  cursive 
manuscript,  together  with  the  testimony  of  Jerome  that 
"  works  "  was  found  in  some  of  the  Gospels  in  his  day, 
the  Coptic,  Syriac,  Armenian  in  its  codices,  ^thiopic, 
and  Persic  versions.  The  mass  of  evidence  may  therefore 
be  said  to  be  in  favour  of  the  common  text.  But  various 
important  considerations  have  to  be  taken  into  account. 

(1.)  Constant  experience  shows  that  a  reading  sup- 
ported by  ^^  and  B  together  is  not  to  be  set  aside, 
except  on  very  strong  grounds. 

(2.)  The  point  before  us  is  one  to  which  versions  can 


Imjyortcmt  Texts  of  the  New  Testament.  157 

bear  valuable   testimony,   and  the   balance    of 
evidence  from  this  source  is  in  favour  of  "works." 

(3.)  The  reading  of  the  ^thiox^ic  codices  is  loeculiarly 
interesting.  It  combines  the  two,  "  of  her  works 
and  of  her  children,"  evidently  in  the  circum- 
stances a  composite  reading  of  which  the  first 
part  is  ]nost  probably  the  foundation. 

(4)  The  well-established  rule,  that  a  reading  in  one 
Gospel  different  from  that  of  the  parallel  passage' 
in  another  Gospel  is  more  likely  to  be   correct 
than  one  exactly  similar,  is  in  favour  of  '*  works."  ^ 

(5.)  The  equally  well-established  rule  that  the  more 
difficult  is  to  be  preferred  to  the  more  easy 
reading  leads  to  the  same  conclusion.  If 
"  children  "  were  the  original  reading,  it  is  not 
easy  to  account  for  a  change  to  "  works."  If 
"  works  "  were  the  original,  the  substitution  of 
"  children  "  can  at  once  be  understood.^ 

(6.)  In  the  sense  thus  afforded  there  is  nothing  ob- 
jectionable. Those  who  see  here  a  doctrine 
similar  to  that  of  a  sinner's  justification  by  works, 
fail  to  notice  that  it  is  not  a  sinner  but  heavenly 
wisdom  that  is  spoken  of,  as  well  as  the  fact  that 
the  Greek  verb  to  justify  is  never  used  in  its 
theological  sense  with  the  Greek  preposition 
found  in  this  verse.  On  the  other  hand,  to  say 
that  "  Wisdom  is  justified  of  her  works"  is  in 
striking  harmony  with  the  whole  tone  of  the 
passage.     The  life  of  Jesus  and  the  life  of  John 

1  Comp.  p.  144.  2  conip.  p.  143. 


158        Effect  produced  hy  Textual  Criticism  upon 

are  both  among  the  works  of  Wisdom  acting 
differently  in  different  circumstances;    and  by 
both  is  Wisdom  justified,  commended  to  every 
open  eye,  vindicated  as  being  what  she  really  is. 
(7.)  What  has  been  last  said  is  strengthened,  if  we 
observe  that  the  correct  translation  of  the  Greek 
verb  is  "  was"  not  "  is  justified,"  carrying  us  back 
in  thought  to  the  moment  when  Wisdom's  works 
were  planned,  and  not  leading  us  to  think  only 
of  the  present  instant,  when  the  children  of  God 
approve  what  the  children  of  the  world  cannot 
comprehend. 
We  decide  therefore  in  favour  of  the  reading, — 
"  But  Wisdom  was  justified  of  her  works." 

Mark  hi.  29. 

We  take  next  a  text  from  the  Gospel  of  St.  Mark. 
In  iii.  29,  we  read  in  the  received  version,  "  But  he  that 
shall  blaspheme  against  the  Holy  Ghost  hath  never  for- 
giveness, but  is  in  danger  of  eternal  damnation."  The 
reading  "damnation"  or  rather  "judgment"  here  is 
supported  by  A  and  by  a  corrector  of  C,  by  several 
other  uncials,  by  the  mass  of  cursives,  by  the  Syriac,  and 
by  two  valuable  manuscripts  representing,  or  nearly  so, 
the  Latin  as  revised  by  Jerome.  On  the  other  hand  the 
word  "  sin"  is  read  instead  of  "judgment"  by  b^,  B,  by 
one  or  two  other  uncials,  and  cursives  with  an  ancient 
text,  by  the  old  Latin  versions  except  one,  by  the  Vul- 
gate, and  manuscripts  representing  Jerome's  revision  of 
it  except  one,  by  the  Coptic,  Armenian,  and  Gothic,  and 


Important  Texts  of  the  New  Testament.  159 

by  one  or  two  Fathers  both  in  the  East  and  in  the  West. 
The  evidence  seems  at  first  sight  more  equally  divided 
than  in  our  last  example.  But  again,  as  there,  several 
considerations  have  to  be  taken  into  account. 

(1.)  We  have  the  same  important  conjunction  of  b^ 
and  B  as  met  us  in  the  last  case,  but  backed 
here  by  a  larger  number  of  uncials. 
(2.)  Another  word  for  "  sin,"  applying  to  sin  in  its 
more  general  character  rather  than  as  a  particular 
offence,  is  found  in  C  (as  appears),  D,  and  two  or 
three  cursives,  thus  showinfy  that  the  reading  "  sin" 
w^as  both  well  known  and  felt  to  be  difficult. 
(3.)  The  evidence  of  versions,  both   numerous   and 

widespread,  is  in  favour  of  "  sin." 
(4.)  The  difficulty  of  the  reading  "sin"  is  unques- 
tionably greater  than  that  of  the  reading  "  judg- 
ment ; "  so  much  so,  that  we  seem  to  see  the 
gradation  by  which  it  passed  out  of  the  text; 
first,  the  more  general  word  for  "  sin"  being  suId- 
stituted  for  that  denoting  a  specific  act  of  sin, 
and  then  "judgment"  coming  in  as  easier  still. 
This  consideration  lends  strong  probability  to 
the  reading  "  sin."  ^ 
(5.)  It  may  be  asked,  What  is  the  meaning  of  an 
eternal  sin  ?  The  answer  most  probably  is,  a  sin 
never  to  be  blotted  out,  and  a  sense — not,  let  it 
be  observed,  actual  words — is  thus  <^iven  comina; 
much  more  near  that  of  the  parallel  passage  in 
Matt.  xii.  32  than  we  should  otherwise  possess. 

1  Comp.  p.  143. 


160       Effect  jprodiiced  hy  Textual  Criticism  upon 

We  decide  therefore  in  favour  of  the  reading, — 

"  But  he  that  shall  blaspheme  against  the  Holy  Ghost 
hath  never  forgiveness,  but  is  guilty  of  an  eternal  sin." 

Luke  ii.  14. 

We  take  next  a  text  in  the  Gospel  of  St.  Luke.  The 
song  of  the  heavenly  host  at  the  birth  of  Jesus  is  given 
by  that  Evangelist  in  ii.  14,  in  the  following  words; 
"  Glory  to  God  in  the  highest,  and  on  earth  peace,  good 
will  towards  men."  But  there  is  another  reading  which 
greatly  changes  the  aspect  of  the  verse.  It  is  difficult  to 
render  it  in  English,  but  literally  rendered,  and  we  con- 
tent ourselves  with  such  a  rendering  for  the  present,  it 
will  run — "  Glory  to  God  in  the  highest,  and  on  earth 
peace  among  men  of  good  pleasure"  or  "good  will." 
Tlie  evidence  in  favour  of  the  received  reading  is  several 
uncial  manuscripts,  among  which  are  readings  introduced 
into  IJ^  and  B  by  later  correctors,  as  it  would  seem  all 
cursive  manuscripts,  the  Coptic,  Syriac,  Armenian,  and 
JEthiopic  versions,  and  a  considerable  number  of  the 
Greek  Fathers.  On  the  other  side  we  have  four  of  the 
most  important  uncials,  b^,  B,  A,  D,  the  first  two,  though 
afterwards  corrected,  having  so  read  in  their  original 
form,  the  old  Latin,  the  Vulgate,  and  the  Gothic 
versions,  together  with  at  least  two  very  ancient  and 
important  Fathers,  one  belonging  to  the  West  the  other 
to  the  East.  Such  is  the  evidence;  how  shall  we 
decide  ? 

(1.)  Our  two  most  important  manuscripts  are  here 
supported  by  other  ancient  authority;   and  so 


Important  Texts  of  the  New  Testament.        161 

much  greater,  therefore,  is  the  weight  due  to 
them.     On  the  other  hand, 
(2.)  The  evidence  of  versions  is  in  favour  of  the  read- 
ing commonly  received. 
(3.)  The  important  fact  meets  us  that  the  most  learned 
and  critical  Greek  Father  of  early  Christianity 
not  only  knew  the  reading  not  received,  but  that 
he    argues   from   it,   and   depends   upon   it,   in 
establishing  a  point  he  has  in  view. 
(4.)  The  long  rejected  reading  is  by  much  the  more 
difficult  of  the  two.     We  can  see  at  once  how  a 
transcriber  of  the  Greek  should  have  substituted 
the  one  now  familiar  to  us  for  the  other.      How 
the  contrary  course  should  have  been  taken  by 
any  it  is  most  difficult  to  conceive. 
These  considerations  lead  to  the  conclusion  that  the 
received  reading  is  to  be  rejected  and  the  other  put  into 
its  place.     It  may  be  said.  Is  not  the  parallelism  thus 
destroyed  ?     We  answer,  No.     It   is   preserved.      The 
Greek  has  only  two  members,  not  three.     There  is  no 
copula  between  the  two  which  are  generally  considered 
to  be  the  second  and  the  third  members  of  the  group. 
The  word  "  and "   divides  the  whole  sentence  into  its 
parts,  and  unless  what  follows  that  word  can  be  gathered 
into  one  clause  the  parallelism  is  broken.     The  new 
reading  enables  us  to  do  so ;  and,  bearing  in  mind  that 
"good  will"  or  ''good  pleasure"  here  is  not  a  human 
virtue,  but  the  Divine  benevolence  or  love,  the  merciful 
purpose  of  God  towards  His  people,  the  passage  as  a 

whole  will  run : — 

L 


162        Effect  produced  hy  Textual  Criticism  upon 

"  Glory  to  God,  in  the  highest, 

and 
On  earth  peace,  in  men  whom  in  His  good  pleasure 
He  hath  chosen." 

John  i.  18. 

From  the  Gospel  of  St.  John  we  select  the  very 
important  text,  i.  18.  There  we  read  in  our  English 
Bible,  "  No  man  hath  seen  God  at  any  time ;  the  only 
begotten  Son,  which  is  in  the  bosom  of  the  Father,  He 
hath  declared  Him."  Another  reading,  however,  presents 
itself  to  our  notice  in  the  substitution  of  the  word 
"  God"  for  the  word  "Son,"  together  with  the  dropping 
of  the  definite  article  before  "  only  begotten,"  thus  giving 
us  the  text  in  the  form,  "  No  man  hath  seen  God  at  any 
time;  an  (or  the)  only  begotten  God  which  is  in  the 
bosom  of  the  Father  hath  declared  Him." 

For  the  received  text  we  have  the  authority  of  A, 
a  late  corrector  of  C,  and  several  other  uncials,  almost 
all  cursives,  several  of  the  old  Latin  versions,  the  Vul- 
gate, the  Curetonian,  the  Philoxenian,  and  the  Jerusalem 
Syriac,  the  Armenian,  and  one  edition  of  the  ^thiopic, 
the  old  Latin  interpreter  of  Irenasus,  Origen,  and  several 
other  Greek  and  Latin  Fathers.  For  the  reading  "  God  " 
we  have  the  authority  of  ^,  B,  the  original  hand  of  C, 
another  highly  important  uncial  not  spoken  of  in  our 
previous  pages,  one  cursive  with  an  ancient  text,  the 
Coptic  version,  the  common  Syriac  version  as  edited  by 
two  different  scholars,  one  edition  of  the  ^thiopic,  the 
I^tin   interpreter   of  Irenseus  in  other  passages  tlian 


Tniportant  Texts  of  the  Neiu  Testament.  163 

those  referred  to  under  the  previous  head,  Origen  also 
in  other  passages  than  those  spoken  of,  and  several, 
especially  Greek,  Fathers,  among  whom  we  find  Arius 
and  writers  of  the  Valentinian  school. 

In  reviewinjTj  this  evidence  it  is  to  be  observed — 

(1.)  That  the  weight  of  manuscript  authority  is  de- 
cidedly in  favour  of  the  reading  "  God." 

(2.)  That  versions  testify  to  a  wider  range  of  this 
reading  than  of  the  other  in  the  early  Church. 

(3.)  That  the  Fathers  cannot  be  implicitly  relied  on, 
as  the  more  important  of  them  may  be  quoted 
on  both  sides. 

(4.)  That,  notwithstanding  this,  there  is  a  degree  of 
distinctness  and  precision  in  their  references  to 
"  God,"  as  the  reading,  that  we  do  not  find  in 
their  references  to  "  Son." 

(5.)  Besides  this,  it  was  quite  natural  that  they  should 
often  speak  of  ''  the  only  begotten  Son,"  for  the 
term  "  Son"  was  that  commonly  used  of  Jesus. 
It  was  not  so  natural  that  they  should  speak  of 
"  the  only  begotten  God,"  for  the  language  is  not 
only  strange  in  itself,  but  the  term  ''  God"  w^as 
commonly  used  of  the  Father.  It  is  impossible 
therefore  to  account  for  their  use  of  this  latter 
expression  at  all  unless  they  were  thoroughly 
satisfied  that  it  was  the  true  reading.  "  Son" 
was  to  them  the  appropriate  designation  of  Jesus, 
and  their  ariTument  is,  that  this  "Son"  is  called 
"  God"  in  the  passage  of  St.  John  now  before  us. 

(G.)  This  argument  is  strengthened  by  the  fact  that 


1G4      Effect  ])rod\iced  ly  Textual  Criticism  upon 

the  Valentinian  heretics  read  "  God,"  a  circum- 
stance which  would  tend  to  make  the  Church 
suspicious  of  it  unless  convinced  that  the  read- 
ing was  correct. 

(7.)  It  is  to  be  noticed  that  there  were  other  variations 
of  the  reading  known  besides  that  which  we  are 
considering,  such  as  "  the  only  begotten  Son  of 
God,"  "the  only  begotten  Son  God,"  "the  only  be- 
•  gotten."  These  variations  unquestionably  point 
to  "God"  as  the  original  and  fundamental  reading, 
that  out  of  which,  and  the  difficulties  connected 
witli  which,  they  would  most  naturally  arise.-^ 

((S.)  "  God"  is  by  much  the  more  difficult  of  the 
two  readings.  We  can  at  once  understand  how 
"  Son"  should  be  substituted  for  it.  It  is  almost 
impossible  to  conceive  how  the  contrary  substi- 
tution could  take  place.  Or,  if  it  be  thought  that 
the  variation  began  in  the  m^argin  and  from 
thence  passed  into  the  text,  we  see  without  diffi- 
culty how  "God"  being  supposed  to  be  in  the 
latter,  "Son"  should  be  placed  in  the  former  as 
an  explanatory  gloss,  but  not  how  "  God"  should 
be  put  into  the  margin  if  "  Son"  were  originally 
in  the  text. 

\).)  Lastly,  the  internal  evidence  is  very  strongly  in 
favour  of  reading  "  God."  It  is  the  constant 
tendency  of  St.  John  to  return  at  intervals  to 
what  he  had  placed  at  the  beginning  of  a  section 
or  passage,  or  to  what  had  been  the  leading 
thought  upon  which  he  had  been  dwelling.  The 
1  Comp.  p.  140. 


hwportant  Texts  of  the  New  Testament.  165 

18th  verse  of  the  first  chapter  closes  the  prelude 
to  his  Gospel,  and  is  exactly  the  place,  therefore, 
where  we  might  expect  to  meet  with  such  a 
summary.  But  in  that  prelude  he  had  had  his 
mind  fixed  on  two  points,  that  in  Jesus  we  have 
that  Word  of  God  which  is  God,  and  that  Jesus 
is  the  only  begotten  of  the  Father.  Now,  then, 
as  he  draws  all  the  sublime  statements  of  this 
prelude  to  his  Gospel  to  a  close,  he  sums  them 
up  in  the  words,  "  No  man  hath  seen  God  at 
any  time ;  the  only  begotten  God  which  is  in 
the  bosom  of  the  Father  hath  declared  Him." 
We  accept  this  as  the  true  reading  of  this  most 
important  verse. 

Acts  xx.  28. 

Having  examined  a  text  from  each  of  the  Gospels,  we 
shall  now  take  one  from  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  and 
thereafter  note  one  or  two  more  from  the  other  books  of 
the  New  Testament.  We  take  Acts  xx.  28,  the  words 
(jf  St.  Paul  at  Miletus,  when  he  urges  the  elders  of. 
Ephesus  "  to  feed  the  Church  of  God,  which  He  hatli 
purchased  with  His  own  blood."  Instead  of  "  God," 
however,  not  a  few  authorities  read  "  the  Lord,"  and 
the  following  is  the  evidence. 

For  the  reading  "  the  Lord  "  three  important  ancient 
manuscripts,  one  additional  uncial,  a  good  many 
cursives,  the  Egyptian,  and  one  of  the  Syriac  versions, 
the  Armenian  version,  and  a  considerable  number  of 
Fathers.     For  the  reading  "  God"  our  two  most  important 


166       Effect  produced  hy  Textucd  Criticism  upon 

uncials  ^  and  B,  and  several  cursives,  the  Vulgate,  the 
best  codices  testifying  to  the  Vulgate  as  revised  by 
Jerome,  the  Philoxenian  Syriac,  and  a  considerable 
number  of  Fathers.  It  is  to  be  noticed  also  that  varia- 
tions such  as  the  following  meet  us :  "  The  Lord  and 
God,"  "  God  and  the  Lord,"  "  the  Lord  God,"  "  Christ," 
and  in  one  Latin  version  "  Jesus  Christ."  This  state  of 
the  evidence  seems  to  warrant  the  remarks : — 

(1.)  That  the  most  valuable  manuscript  evidence  is 

undoubtedly  in  favour  of  the  reading  "  God." 
(2.)  Evidence  from  versions  is  about  equally  divided; 
for  if  on  the  one  side  we  have  the   Egyptian 
versions,   on   the   other   we  have  the  Latin  as 
revised  by  Jerome. 
(3.)  The  evidence   of  Fathers  is  also  about  equalb^ 
divided,   although   it   leans   to   the   support    of 
"  God." 
We  have  here  evidently  a  case  in  which,  considering 
the  number  of  variations  that  have  arisen,  much  weight 
is  due  to  the  rule  explained,  p.  140,  that  the  reading 
which  is  most  probably  the  parent  of  all  the   others 
is  also  most  probably  the  true  ane.      We  add,  therefore, 
(4)  That  all  the  variations  noted  by  us  are  much 
more  likely  to  have  sprung  from  "  God "   than 
from   "  the  Lord."      Supposing   "  the  Lord "  to 
have  been  the  original  reading  we  cannot  under- 
stand how  "  and  God  "  should  have  been  added. 
If  "  God  "  were  the  original  we  can  easily  under- 
stand how  changes  should  have  been  introduced 
to    soften   such   an   expression   as    "  God,   who 


Imrportant  Texts  of  the  New  Testament.  167 

purchased  with  His  own  blood."  In  proof  of 
this  we  find  that  a  Latin  interpreter  of  the  Greek 
Ignatius  changes  an  expression  of  the  latter, 
"  the  blood  of  God  "  into  ''  the  blood  of  Christ 
God ;  "  and  further,  that  the  Latin  translator  of 
Irenseus  makes  use  of  the  reading  "the  Lord," 
while  the  course  of  his  argument  leads  to  the 
inference  that  he  had  "  God  "  before  him  in  his 
Greek. 

(5.)  The  expression  "  the  Church  of  God "  is  one 
common  in  St.  Paul's  Epistles,  but  he  never 
speaks  of  "  the  Church  of  the  Lord." 

(6.)  The  reading  "  God  "  is  a  much  more  difficult  one 
than  "  the  Lord,"  when  we  look  at  the  words 
immediately  following. 

These  considerations  lead  to  the  adoption  of  the  read- 
ing— 

"  The  Church  of  God,  which  He  hath  purchased  with 
His  own  blood." 

EOM.  V.  1. 

By  the  change  of  a  single  letter  in  the  Greek,  we  here 
read  "let  us  have,"  instead  of  "we  have/'in  the  Author- 
ized Version.  The  evidence  stands  as  follows :  For  "  let 
us  have"  A,  B,  C,  D,  ^,  etc.,  the  earliest  versions, 
Augustine,  Chrysostom,  Theodoret,  and  many  others  of 
the  Fathers.  For  "we  have"  two  or  three  second-rate 
uncials,  some  inferior  versions,  and  a  few  of  the  Fathers. 
The  preponderance  of  authority  is  therefore  distinctly  in 
favour  of  the  former  reading,  and  the  verse  should  run 
as  follows : — 


168       Effect  produced  hy  Textual  Criticism  upon 

"  Therefore,  being  justified  by  faith,  let  us  have  peace 
with  God  through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ." 

EOM.  VIII.  1. 

It  has  been  previously  observed  that  the  last  clause 
of  this  verse  is  an  interpolation.  For  it  there  are  some 
inferior  uncials,  a  few  Fathers,  and  one  or  two  late 
versions.  Against  it  there  are  B,  C,  D,  ^,  etc.,  Augustine, 
Cyril,  Athanasius,  and  others  of  the  Fathers,  with  some 
versions.  The  evidence  is  thus  clearly  against  the 
clause,  and  the  verse  should  read  thus : — 

"There  is  tlierefore  now  no  condemnation  to  them 
which  are  in  Christ  Jesus." 

Eph.  i.  1. 

The  question  here  is,  whether  or  not  the  words  "  in 
Ephesus"  are  genuine.  It  is  no  easy  matter  to  decide. 
On  the  one  hand,  the  great  mass  of  authorities  of  all  kinds 
is  in  favour  of  the  words  :  on  the  other  hand,  B  and 
^^,  the  two  most  ancient  manuscripts,  are  against  them. 
Basil  the  Great,  who  lived  in  the  fourth  century,  declares 
that  they  were  wanting  in  ancient  copies  of  the  New 
Testament  in  his  day.  There  are  some  other  statements 
of  the  Fathers  to  the  same  effect,  so  that  we  can  form, 
in  the  present  state  of  the  evidence,  no  very  decided 
judgment  on  either  side.  It  is  certainly  somewhat  diffi- 
cult to  understand  how  St.  Paul  could  have  written  an 
epistle  specially  addressed  to  the  church  at  Ephesus, 
and  yet  make  not  a  single  personal  allusion  to  any  in 
the  place  where  he  had  lived  and  laboured  so  long.     If 


Imijortant  Texts  of  the  New  Testament.  169 

the  epistle  be  regarded  as  encyclical — that  is,  as  intended 
to  circulate  among  the  several  churches  of  Asia  Minor, 
that  difficulty  will  be  removed,  and  the  opening  verse 
will  read  thus  : — 

"  Paul,  an  apostle  of  Jesus  Christ,  by  the  will  of  God, 
to  those  that  are  saints,  and  to  the  faithful  in  Christ 
Jesus." 

Heb.  ii.  9. 

A  singular  various  reading  occurs  in  this  verse.  In- 
stead of  the  words  "by  the  grace  of  God"  some  manu- 
scripts and  a  number  of  the  early  Fathers  read  "  without" 
or  "  apart  from  God."  Origen,  in  the  third  century,  knew 
both  readings,  but  the  latter  seems  to  have  been  the 
dominant  one,  as  he  expounds  it,  and  says  that  "  by  the 
grace  of  God"  was  found  only  "in  some  copies."  Theo- 
doret,  in  the  fifth  century,  knew  of  no  other  reading 
than  "  without  God,"  and  the  same  is  true  of  others  of 
the  Fathers.  Still,  although  patristic  evidence  is  here 
strong,  there  seem  good  reasons,  both  external  and  in- 
ternal, for  adhering  to  the  common  text.  All  the  manu- 
scripts and  versions  of  most  weight  are  in  favour  of  "  by 
the  grace  of  God,"  and  this  expression  is  in  analogy 
with  the  rest  of  Scripture,  whereas  "  apart  from  God  " 
rests  on  but  weak  manuscript  authority,  and  seems 
totally  unlike  any  statement  to  be  met  with  elsewhere 
in  Scripture. 

This  verse  therefore  will  stand  as  in  the  received 
text. 


170        Effect  produced  hy  Textual  Criticism  upon 

1  Pet.  III.  15. 

A  very  interesting  and  important  various  reading 
occurs  in  this  verse,  viz.,  the  substitution  of  Christ  for 
God.  In  favour  of  the  text  as  it  stands  there  are  a  few 
uncials,  and  one  or  two  Fathers,  but  in  support  of  the 
reading  Christ  v/e  have  A,  B,  C,  ^,  etc.,  the  best  versions, 
and  several  of  the  Fathers.  There  can  be  no  doubt, 
therefore,  that  a  change  should  here  be  made  in  the 
text.  And  that  change  is  of  the  greatest  importance, 
for,  as  the  Apostle  here  applies  to  Christ  language 
which  in  the  Old  Testament  is  made  use  of  with  refer- 
ence to  Jehovah  (see  Isa.  viii.  13),  he  clearly  suggests 
the  supreme  Godhead  of  our  Eedeemer.  The  clause 
then,  will  stand  thus  : — 

"  But  sanctify  Christ  as  Lord  in  your  hearts." 

1  Jo  PIN  II.  23. 

This  verse  stands  in  the  Authorized  Version  as  follows : 
"  Whosoever  denieth  the  Son,  the  same  hath  not  the 
Father:  \hut'\  he  that  achnowledgeth  the  Son  hath  the 
Father  also!'  By  the  use  of  italics  in  the  second  clause 
it  is  suggested  that  the  words  rest  on  doubtful  or  insuffi- 
cient authority.  But  (with  the  exception  of  the  initial 
hut)  textual  criticism  has  fully  demonstrated  their  gen- 
uineness. They  are  omitted  in  some  uncial  manuscripts, 
but. are  found  in  A,  B,  C,  N,  in  the  versions,  and  in 
Clement,  Oriqen,  and  others  of  the  Fathers.  The  verse 
then  should,  without  any  hesitation,  be  read  as  follows: — 

''  AVhosoever  denieth  the  Son,  the  same  hath  not  the 


Important  Texts  of  the  Neio  Testament.  IVl 

Father ;  he  that  acknowledgeth  the  Son  hath  the  Father 
also." 

1  John  iii.  1. 

A  remarkable  addition  should  be  made  to  the  text  in 
this  verse.  Against  the  addition  "  and  we  are  "  there 
are  two  or  three  uncials,  the  Coptic  version,  and  one  or 
two  Fathers.  But  in  favour  of  the  addition  there  are 
A,  B,  C,  ^,  with  Augustine  and  others  of  the  Fathers. 
The  addition  therefore  should,  on  all  sound  critical 
principles,  certainly  be  made,  and  the  verse  will  accord- 
ingly stand  thus — 

"  Behold,  what  manner  of  love  the  Father  hath 
bestowed  upon  us,  that  we  should  be  called  children  of 
God ;  and  we  are  [such]  :  therefore  the  world  knoweth 
us  not,  because  it  knew  Him  not." 

1  John  v.  13. 

This  verse  reads  very  strangely  in  the  common  text : 
"  These  things  have  I  written  unto  you  that  believe  on 
the  name  of  the  Son  of  God;  that  ye  may  know  that  ye 
have  eternal  life,  and  that  ye  may  believe  on  the  name 
of  the  Son  of  God."  Eeaders  of  the  epistle  are  thus 
declared  to  do  in  the  first  clause  what  they  are  exhorted 
to  do  in  the  last.  But  the  balance  of  authority  seems 
against  the  verse  as  it  stands.  For  it  there  are  one  or 
two  uncials  and  a  few  Fathers ;  against  it  there  are  B,  ^, 
the  Syriac  versions,  and  some  of  the.  Fathers.  A  is  here 
peculiar.  It  omits  the  clause  "  that  believe  on  the  name 
of  the  Son  of  God."     But,  in  accordance  with  the  evi- 


172  Effect  produced  hy  Textual  Criticism. 

dence  just  stated,  we  shonld  probably  read  the  verse 
thus, — 

"  These  things  have  T  written  unto  you,  that  ye  may 
know  that  ye  have  eternal  life,  ye  who  believe  on  the 
name  of  the  Son  of  God." 

Eev.  xvii.  8. 

The  two  last  clauses  of  this  verse  seem  flatly  to  contra- 
dict each  other  in  the  common  text.  "  The  beast  that 
thou  sawest  was,  and  is  not ;  and  shall  ascend  out  of 
the  bottomless  pit,  and  go  into  perdition :  and  they  that 
dwell  on  the  earth  shall  wonder,  whose  names  w^ere  not 
written  in  the  book  of  life  from  the  foundation  of  the 
world,  when  they  behold  the  beast  that  was,  and  is  not, 
and  yet  is."  There  is  hardly  any  evidence  whatever  for 
this  paradoxical  reading.  A  and  ^?  combine  against  it, 
and  support  the  following,  which  is  also  confirmed  by 
23atristic  authority : — 

"The  beast  that  thou  sawest  was,  and  is  not;  and 
shall  ascend  out  of  the  bottomless  pit,  and  goeth  into 
perdition  ;  and  they  that  dwell  on  the  earth  shall  wonder, 
whose  names  are  not  written  in  the  book  of  life  from 
the  foundation  of  the  world,  when  they  behold  the  beast, 
that  he  w^as,  and  is  not,  and  shall  [again]  be." 


CHAPTEE   II. 

EFFECT  PRODUCED  BY  TEXTUAL  CRITICISM  UPON  THE  TEXT 
OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  IN  ITS  SUCCESSIVE  BOOKS. 

ilAVING  pointed  out  the  manner  in  whicli  the 
principles  of  textual  criticism  explained  in 
the  earlier  chapters  of  this  book  are  to  be 
applied  to  a  few  of  the  more  important  texts 
(jf  the  New  Testament,  we  shall  now  endeavour  to  con- 
vey to  our  readers  some  impression  of  the  general  effect 
to  be  expected  from  the  application  of  these  principles 
to  the  New  Testament  as  a  whole.  It  will  be  impossible 
to  note  every  change  of  text  that  ought  legitimately  to 
follow  from  our  premisses,  and  many  of  them  are  so 
trifling  that  the  English  reader,  especially  on  first  making 
acquaintance  with  the  subject,  cannot  be  expected  to 
take  much  interest  in  them.  We  shall  confine  ourselves 
therefore  to  such  changes  as  really  affect  the  meaning  of 
the  original. 

Gospel  of  St.  Matthew. 

Chap.  i.         The  only  change  of  interest  in  this  chapter 
V.  25.        is  in  v.  25,  where,  speaking  of  the  mother  of  our 


174     Effect  proditcecl  hy  Textual  Criticism  upon  the 

Lord,  the  Evangelist  ought  to  be  made  to  say 
"  till  she  brought  forth  a  son,"  not  "  till  she 
brought  forth  her  first-born  son." 

Chap.  ii.  The  second  chapter  in  like  manner  aftbrds 
only  one  change  needing  to  be  noted,  for  in 

V.  18.  V.  18  tlie  words  "  lamentation  and  "  ought  to 
be  omitted,  and  the  text,  thus  making  a  nearer 
approach  to  the  language  of  the  prophet, 
should  read,  "In  Eama  was  there  a  voice 
heard,  weeping  and  great  mourning." 

Chap.  iii.  The  changes  of  the  third  chapter  do  not  call 
for  notice. 

Chap.  iv.  And  the  same  remark  applies  to  those  of 
the  fourth. 

Chap.  V.        In  the  fifth  chapter  we  ought  to   read   v. 

V.  22.  22,  omitting  "  without  cause,"  "  whosoever  is 
anojry  with  his  brother  shall  be  in  danoer  of  the 

V.  27.        judgment."  ^     In  v.  27  the  words  "  by  them  of 

V.  32.  old  time  "  ought  to  be  omitted.  In  v.  32, 
where  our  present  text  gives  us  "  causeth  her 
to  commit  adultery,"  we  should  find,  "  causetli 
adultery  to  be  committed  upon  her,"  or 
"  causeth  her  to  suffer  adultery,"  that  is,  treat- 
eth  her  as  though  she  were  an  adulteress.     In 

?•.  44.  V.  44  several  clauses  are  to  be  omitted,  and 
the  reading  ought  to  be,  "  but  I  say  unto  you, 
Love  your  enemies,  and  pray  for  them  whicli 
V.  47.  persecute  you."  In  v.  47,  for  the  words  "  do 
not  even  the  publicans,"  we  ought  to  read  "  do 
not  even  the  heathen  the  same  ? "    And,  finally, 

1  Comp.  p.  110. 


Text  of  the  New  Testawent  in  its  successive  Books.     175 

V.  48.  in  V.  48  we  ought  to  be  instructed  to  be  perfect, 
not  as  our  "  Father  which  is  in  heaven,"  but 
as  our  "  heavenly  Father  is  perfect." 

Chap.  vi.      In  the  sixth  chapter  the  first  change  that 

V.  1,  meets  us  is  that  of  v.  1,  "  Take  heed  that  ye  do 

not  your  rigliteousness  "  instead  of  "  your  ahns 

V.  4,  6,  before  men."  Next,  at  the  end  of  v.  4,  6,  18, 
18,         we  have  to  omit  the  word  "openly."  i     Then,  in 

V.  12.  the  fifth  petition  of  the  Lord's  prayer  in  v.  12, 
we  must  read  "  as  we  have  forgiven,"  not  "  as 
we  forgive  our  debtors  ; "  while  the  doxology  of 

V.  13.  the  prayer  in  v.  13,  "  for  Thine  is  the  kingdom, 
and  the  power,  and  the  glory,  for  ever.  Amen," 
must  be  left  out.     The  only  other  change  in 

V.  33.  this  chapter  calling  for  notice  is  that  of  v.  33, 
where,  when  we  read  the  verse,  as  we  ought  to 
do,  in  immediate  connection  with  the  preceding 
one,  the  true  reading  is  much  more  beautiful 
than  tliat  of  our  English  Version,  "  But  seek  ye 
first  His  kingdom  and  His  righteousness." 

Chap.  vii.  In  the  seventh  chapter  only  one  change  of 
importance  meets  us.     It  occurs  in  the  last 

?;.  29.  verse  of  the  chapter,  which  will  run,  "  For  He 
taught  them  as  one  having  authority,  and  not 
as  their  scribes." 

Chap.  viii.     In  the  eighth  chapter  the  reading  of  v.  1(1 

V.  10.        becomes  much  more  emphatic  than  as  it  stands, 

"  Verily,  I  say  unto  you,  With  no  man  in  Israel 

have  I  found  so  great  faitli."     The  grateful 

feelings  of  St.  Peter's  mother-in-law  are  more 

1  Comp.  pp.  86,  109. 


176    Effect  produced  hy  Textual  Criticism  icpo7i  the 

fully  brought  out  when  we  read,  as  we  ought 
V.  15.        to  do,  in  v.  15,  that  "  she  ministered  unto  Him," 
?,'.  25.        instead  of  "  them."     In  v.  25  the  true  reading, 
omitting    "  us,"    sets   before   us   much    more 
graphically  the  quick  alarmed  cry  of  the  dis- 
ti  31.        ciples,  "Lord,  save;  we  perish."     And  in  v.  31 
the  subjection   of  the  devils  to  our  Lord  is 
more  pointed  when  we  find  them  saying,  as 
the  true  text  requires,  not  "  suffer  us  to  go 
away,"  but  "  send  us  away  into  the  herd  of 
swine." 
Chap.  ix.      In  the  ninth  chapter  the  following  changes 
V.  8.  may  be  noted  as  worthy  of  regard.     In  v.  8 

for  the    "  marvelling"    of  the  multitudes  we 
V.  13.        ought  to  read  "  they  were  afraid."     In  v.  13 
the  words  of  our  Lord  are  simply,  "  for  I  came 
not  to  call  the  righteous,  but  sinners."^     In 
V.  35.        V.  35  the  words  "among  the  people,"  which 
might  limit  our  Lord's  miracles  of  mercy  to 
the  theocratic  nation,  have  no  right  to  claim 
V.  36.        their  place.     And  in  v.  36  the  reading  "  be- 
cause they  fainted"    will   give   way   to   one 
more  suitable  to  the  circumstances  of  the  case, 
"  because  they  were  distressed." 
Chap.  X.        In  the  tenth  chapter,  v.  4  ought  to  present 
V.  4.  the  reading,  "Simon  the  zealot"  not  "Simon 

V.  23.        the  Canaanite."     In  v.  23  the  true  reading  is 
not  "  flee  ye  into  another,"  but  "  flee  ye  into 
the   next,"    thus   bringing   out  the  mode  in 
which  the  persecuted  disciples  were  in  their 
^  Comp.  p.  144. 


Text  of  the  New  Testament  in  its  successive  Books.  177 

flight  not  so  much  to  seek  safety  for  them- 
selves, as  rather  new  and  successive  fields  of 
labour,  that  they  might  thus  go  over  as  many 
as  possible  of  the  cities  of  Israel  before  the 
V.  25.         Son  of  Man  should  come.     In  v.  25  the  true 
reading  is  not  "  if  they  have  called,"  but  "  if 
they  have  surnamed  the  master  of  the  house 
Beelzebub." 
Chap.  xi.      In  the   eleventh   chapter   the   mention   of 
V.  2.  "two"  of  John's  disciples  in  v.  2  ought  to  be 

omitted,  for  we  are  only  told  that  John  sent 
V.  19.        "by  his  disciples."     In  v.   19  the  statement 
of  the  true  text  is,  not  that  "  Wisdom  is  justi- 
fied of  her  children,"  but  that  "Wisdom  is 
V.  23.        justified  by  her  works  ;"^   and  in  v.  23  the 
graphic  force  of  the  Saviour's  appeal  is  greatly 
heightened  if  we  read,  with  what  appears  to  be 
the  best   authenticated  text,   interrogatively, 
''And  thou,  Capernaum,  shalt  thou  be  exalted  to 
heaven  ?     Thou  shalt  be  brought  down  to  hell." 
Chap.  xii.      In  the  twelfth  chapter  little  change  of  im- 
V.  6.  portance  is  necessary.     We  note  only  in  v.  6 

the  substitution  of  the  neuter  for  the  mascu- 
line, not   "  in  this  place  is  one  greater  than 
the  temple,"  but  "  that  which  is  greater  than 
V.  8.  the  temple  is  here ;"  in  v.   8   the  omission  of 

V.  35.  "  even ; "  and  in  v.  35  the  substitution  of 
"out  of  his  good  treasure"  for  "out  of  the 
good  treasure  of  the  heart,"  a  change  by  which 

^  Comp.  p.  156. 
M 


i"- 


178   Effect  produced  hy  Textual  Criticism  upon  the 

the  contrast  between  the  good  and  the  evil 
man  is  more  distinctly  brought  to  view. 

Chap.  xiii.  In  the  thirteenth  chapter  also  little  change 
is  needed.     The  words    "  to  hear"    are  to  be 

V.  9.  omitted  in  v.  9,  and  the  verse  ought  to  read 

V.  22.  "  He  that  hath  ears  let  him  hear."  In  v.  22 
"  the  care  of  this  world"  ought  to  give  way  to 

V.  34.  "  the  care  of  the  world."  In  v.  34  "  and  with- 
out a  parable  spake  He  not  unto  them"  ought 
to  be  read  "  and  without  a  parable  spake  He 

V.  43.  nothing  unto  them."  In  v.  43  the  same  change 
has  to  be  made  as  in  v.  9 ;  and  lastly,  for 

V.  55.  "  Joses"  in  v.  55  we  ought  to  read  "Joseph;" 
a  reading  of  no  small  interest  in  connection 
with  an  inquiry  that  cannot  be  entered  upon 
here,  as  to  the  personality  of  James  the 
writer  of  the  Epistle  of  James  in  our  New 
Testament  canon. 

Chap.  xiv.     In  the  fourteenth  chapter  two  slight  changes 

V.  12.  meet  us  in  v.  12,  where  "  the  corpse  "  ought  to 
be  substituted  for  "  the  body,"  and   "  buried 

-y.  25.  him  "  for  "  buried  it."  In  v.  25  "  Jesus  came 
unto  them  "  is  better  vouched  for  than  "  Jesus 

V.  30.        went  unto  them ; "   and  in  v.   30   the   word 

"  boisterous  "  ought  to  be  omitted. 
Chap.  XV.     In  the  fifteenth  chapter  a  slight  change  of 
V.  1.  reading  ought  to  be  made  in  v.  1,  giving  us, 

instead  of  "  Then  came  to  Jesus  scribes  and 
Pharisees,  which  were  of  Jerusalem,"  "  Then 
come  to  Jesus  from  Jerusalem,  Pharisees  and 


Text  of  the  Neio  Testament  in  its  successive  Books.  179 

V.  6.  scribes."     The  omission  of  some  words  in  v.  6 

supplies  the  reading  "  He  shall  not  honour  his 
father,"  instead  of  "  And  honour  not  his  father 
or  his  mother,  he  shall  he  free ;"  and  again  in 

V.  8.  V.  8  another  omission  of  some  words  gives  us 

simply  "  This  people  honoureth  me  with  their 

V.  14.  lips,  but  their  heart  is  far  from  me."  In  v.  14 
we  ought  to  read  "  they  be  blind  leaders," 
rather   than   "they   be   blind  leaders   of  the 

V.  17.  blind;"  and  in  v.  17  "not"  falls  to  be  sub- 
stituted for  "  not  yet." 

Chap.  xvi.     In  the  sixteenth  chapter  the  words  "  0  ye 

V.  3.  hypocrites  "  of  v.  3  have  properly  no  place  in 

the  text,  nor  the  description  of  Jonah  as  "  the 

vv.  4,  8.  prophet "  in  v.  4.  In  v.  8  we  ought  to  read 
"  because  ye  have  no  bread,"  and  not  "  because 

V.  13.  ye  have  brought  no  bread."  In  v.  13,  for 
"  Whom  do  men  say  that  I  the  Son  of  Man 
am  ?"  the  true  text  gives  us,  "Who  do  men  say 

V.  20.        that  the  Son  of  Man  is  ? "     In  v.  20  the  word 

V.  26.  "  Jesus  "  ou^ht  to  be  omitted ;  and  in  v.  26, 
"for  what  shall  a  man  be  profited  ?"  is  better 
established  than  "  for  what  is  a  man  profited  ?" 

Chap.  xvii.     In  the  seventeenth  chapter  the  words  of 

V.  4.  Peter  in  v.  4  are  much  more  characteristic 

when  we  adopt  the  true  text — not  ''let  us  make 
here,"  but  "  I  will  make  here  three  tabernacles." 

V.  11.        In  V.  11  the  word  "first"  ought  to  go  out. 

V.  20.  In  V.  20  we  are  to  read  "  because  of  your  little 
faith"  rather  than  "  because  of  your  unbelief ; " 


180    Effect  produced  hj  Textual  Criticism  upon  the 

V.  21.        and  the  wliole  of  v.  21,  "Howbeit  tliis  kind 

goeth  not  out  but  by  prayer  and  fasting,"  is  to 

be  omitted. 

Chap,  xviii.     In  the  eighteenth  chapter  the  whole  of 

'yv.  11,15.  V.  11  ought  to  disappear;  and  in  v.  15  the 

precept  of  our  Lord  receives  far  greater  breadth 

by  the  omission  of  the  words  "  against  thee," 

an  omission  demanded  by  the  evidence.     In 

'0.  29.        V.  29  we  ought  also  to  omit  "at  his  feet;"  and 

V.  35.        V.  35  ought  to  close  with  the  word  "  brother," 

"  if  ye  forgive  not  every  one  his  brother." 
Chap.  xix.     In  the  nineteenth  chapter  the  first  change 
V.  17.        of  importance  that  meets  us  is  at  v.  17,  which 
ought  to  be  read,  "  Why  askest  thou  me  con- 
cerning that  which  is   good  ?     There  is   one 
that  is  good.     But  if  thou  wouldest  enter  into 
V.  20.        life  keep  the  commandments."     In  v.  20  the 
words    "from   my   youth   up"    ought   to   be 
V.  29.        omitted;  and  in  v.  29  the  words  "or  wife." 
Chap.  XX.     In  the  twentieth  chapter  the  last  clause  of 
'0.  7.  V.  7  ought  to  have  no  place  in  the  text,  "  and 

whatsoever  is  right,  that  shall   ye  receive;" 
and  the  same  observation  applies  to  the  last 
'0.  16.        clause  of  v.  16,  "  for  many  be  called,  but  few 
V.  19.        chosen."     In  v.  19  the  true  reading  supplies 
the  words   "  and  the  third  day  He  shall  be 
raised  up,"  rather  than   "  and  the  third  day 
V.  22.        He  shall  rise  again."     In  v.   22  we  ought  to 
omit  the  words  "  and  to  be  baptized  with  the 
baptism  that  I  am  baptized  with,"  a  remark 


Text  of  the  New  Testament  in  its  successive  Boohs.  181 

V.  23.        applying  also  to  the  similar  clause  in  v.  23. 
vv.  26,  27.  In  vv.  26,  27  the  imperative  form  "  let  him  be" 
ought   to   be   changed   for    the    future   form 
V.  34.        "  shall  be ;"  and  in  v.  34,  instead  of  reading  of 
the  blind  men  just  healed  that  "  their  eyes 
received  sight,"  we  ought  to  read  "  they  re- 
ceived their  sight." 
Chap.  xxi.     In  the  twenty-first  chapter  one  change  only 
V.  38.        need  be  noted,  where  in  v.  38  the  husbandmen 
are  made  to  exclaim,  "  Come,  let  us  kill  him, 
and  let  us  keep  his  inheritance." 
Chap.  xxii.     In  the  twenty-second  chapter  we  ought  to 
V.  13.        read  in  v.  13,  with  the  omission  of  a  few  words 
from  the  present  text,  "  Bind  him  hand  and 
V.  23.        foot,  and  cast  him,"  etc.     In  v.  23  we  are  not 
told  of  "Sadducees  which  say,"  as  if  the  pur- 
pose were  to  describe  the  tenets  of  the  sect, 
but  of  "  Sadducees  saying,"  the  remark  being 
confined  to  the  particular  persons  introduced 
V.  40.        to  us.     In  V.  40  the  true  text  gives,  "  on  these 
two  commandments  hangeth  the  whole  law 
V.  44.        and  the  prophets ; "  and  in  v.  44  the  words 
given  as  a  quotation  from  the  110th  Psalm  are, 
"  till  I  put  thine  enemies  under  thy  feet." 
Chap,  xxiii.     In  the  twenty-third  chapter  the  word  "for" 
V.  5.  ought  to -tre  inserted  in  v.  5  before  "they  make 

V.  7.  broad  their  phylacteries."     In  v.  7  "Eabbi" 

V.  8.  ought  to  be  read  only  once ;  and  in  v.  8  the 

words  "even  Christ"  have  to  be  omitted.    The 
vv.  14, 17.  whole  of  v.  14  ought  to  go  out.     In  v.  17  we 


182    Effect  produced  hy  Textual  Criticism  upon  the 

ought  to  read  not  of  the  temple  "  whicli  sanc- 

tifieth,"  but  of  the  temple  "  which  hath  sancti- 

V.  19.        tied  the  gold ; "  and  lastly,  in  v.  19  the  words 

"  ye  fools"  have  no  claim  to  be  in  the  text. 
Chap.  XX iv.     In  the  twenty-fourth  chapter  the  words 
V.  7.  "  and  pestilences  "  in  v.  7  have  to  be  left  out. 

V.  17.        In  V.  17  we  ought  to  read,  not  of  taking  "any- 
thing," but  of  taking  "  the  things  "  out  of  the 
V.  28.        house.     At  the  beginning  of  v.  28  "  for  "  must 
V.  36.        be  omitted  ;  and  the  latter  part  of  v.  36  ought 
to  read,  "  no,  not  the  angels  of  heaven,  neither 
the  Son,  but  the  Father  only." 
Chap.  XXV.     In  the  twenty -fifth  chapter  the  word  "  for  " 
V.  3.  ought  to  be  inserted  at  the  beginning  of  v.  3. 

V.  6.  In  V.  6  the  word  "  cometh  "  has  to  be  omitted 

after  "  bridegroom,"^  and  the  same  remark  has 
t;.  13.        to  be  made  of  the  last  words  of  v.  13,  which 
properly  closes  with  the  word  "  hour."     In  v. 
V.  31.         31  we  ought  to  read  simply  of  "angels,"  not 
V.  41.        "  holy  angels  ;"  and  the  words  of  v.  41  are  not 
"depart  from  me,  ye  cursed,"  but  "depart  from 
me,  accursed." 
Chap.  xxvi.     In  the  twenty-sixth  chapter  there  is  no 
V.  3.  mention  of  "the  scribes"  in  v.  3.     In  v.  26  we 

V.  26.         ought  to  read  that  Jesus  took  a  "  loaf,"  not 
V.  27.         "bread;"  in  v.  27  that  He  took  "a  cup,"  not 
V.  28.        "  the  cup ; "  and  in  v.  28  that  He  spoke  only 
of  the  "testament,"  or  rather  covenant,  "in  His 
blood,"  without  describing   it  as  "new."     In 

^  Comp.  p.  5. 


Text  of  the  Neio  Testament  in  its  successive  Books.  183 

'0.  43.        V.  43  the  change  to  be  made  is  important,  as 

throwing  light  on  the  feelings  of  the  disciples 

at  the  solemn  moment  referred  to,  for  we  ou2;ht 

to  read  that  Jesus  "came  again  and  found  them 

asleep,"  not  that  He  "  came  and  found  them 

asleep  again ; "  their  sleep  had  most  probably 

V.  55.        continued  from  the  first.     In  v.  55  the  words 

V.  59.        "  with  you"  have  to  be  omitted;  and  in  v.  59 

-y.  65.        the  words  "  and  elders."     In  v.  65  the  horror 

of  the  high  priest  comes  out  more  forcibly 

when  we  notice  that  the  last  clause  of  the  verse 

ought  to  read,   "behold,  now  ye  have  heard 

the,"  rather  than  " His,  blasphemy;"  and  in  v. 

V.  74.        74  the  true  reading  tells  us  not  that  St.  Peter 

began  to  "  curse,"  but  that  he  "  began  to  bind 

himself  under  a  curse,"  or  "to  affirm  upon  oath." 

Chav.  xxvii.     In  the  twenty-seventh  chapter  the  name 

V.  2.  "Pontius"  prefixed  in  v.  2  to  "Pilate"  has  to 

V.  5.  be  dropped.    In  v.  5  an  important  emendation 

of  the  text  is  found  in  the  change  of  "  in  the 

temple"  into  "into  the  temple."     The  part  of 

the  temple  here  alluded  to  is  the  Holy  place, 

into  which  none  but  the  priests  might  enter. 

Judas   therefore   could   not   be  w^ithin    "the 

temple,"  but  in   his  remorse  and   despair  he 

rushed  to  the  entrance  and  cast  into  the  sacred 

in  closure  his  ill-gotten  gains,  the  price  of  his 

V.  23.         Eedeemer's  blood.     In  v.  23  "he"  ought  to  be 

'0.  34.        substituted  for  "  the  governor  ;"  and  in  v.  34 

v..  35.        "wine"  for  "vinegar."     The  w^hole  of  v.  35, 


184     Effect  p-oduced  hy  Textual  Criticism  upon  the 

after  "  casting  lots,"  lias  to  be  omitted ;  and  in 
V.  42.        V.  42  the  scornful  cry  of  tlie  people  is  enhanced 

by  the  true  reading,  not  "  if  He  be  the  King  of 

Israel,"  but  simply  "He  is  the  King  of  Israel." 
V.  64.        Finally,  in  v.  64  the  words  "  by  night "  have 

no  proper  place. 
Chap,  xxviii.     In  the  twenty-eighth  chapter  the  changes 

to  which  attention  need  be  called  are  few.     In 
V.  2.  V.  2  the  words  "  from  the  door  "  are  to  be  left 

V.  9.  out ;  in  V.  9  the  words  "  as  they  went  to  tell 

V.  20.        His  disciples;"^  and  in  v.  20  the  word  "Amen." 

Gospel  of  St.  Mark. 

Chap.  i.        In  the  first  chapter  of  this  Gospel  we  must 

V.  2.  read  in  v.  2  for  "  as  it  is  written  in  the  pro- 

phets "  the  words  "as  it  is  written  in  Isaiah  the 
prophet,"  while  the  two  last  words  of  the  verse, 

V.  11.  "before  Thee,"  must  be  omitted.  In  v.  11 
"  in  Thee  I  am  well  pleased,"  takes  the  place  of 

V.  14.  "  in  whom  I  am  well  pleased."  In  v.  14  we 
find  the  interesting  expression  "  the  Gospel  of 
God,"  instead  of  "  the  Gospel  of  the  kingdom 

V.  24.  of  God."  In  v.  24  the  first  words  of  the  man 
with  the  unclean  spirit,  "  Let  us  alone,"  have 

V.  27.  no  proper  place  in  the  text;  and  in  v.  27  the 
changes  to  be  made  on  the  original  lend  a 
power  and  vividness  to  the  description  not 
otherwise  possessed  by  it,  when  the  people  in 
their  amazement  are  represented  as  exclaim- 

1  Comp.  p.  112. 


Text  of  the  New  Testament  in  its  successive  Books.  185 

ing,  "  What  is  this  ?  A  new  teaching  !  With 
authority  commandeth  He  even  the  unclean 
spirits,  and  they  do  obey  him." 

Chap.  ii.       In  the  second  chapter  a  graphicness  similar 

V.  7.  to  that  spoken  of  in  i.  27  is  lent  to  v.  7,  when 

we  read,  as  required  by  the  evidence,  "  Why 
doth  this  man  thus  speak  ?     He  blasphemeth." 

V.  16.  In  V.  16  we  ought  to  iind  the  singular  expres- 
sion, throwing  fresh  light  upon  the  different 
parties  then  existing  in  Jerusalem,  "  and  when 
the  scribes  of  the  Pharisees  saw  him  eat,"  etc. 

V.  17.        In  V.  17  the  two  last  words,  "to  repentance," 

V.  20.  must  be  left  out.  In  v.  20  our  Lord's  words 
receive  new  emphasis  by  the  true  reading, ''  in 
that  day  "  instead  of  "  in  those  days ; "  and  the 
same  remark  is  applicable  to  the  best  authen- 

V.  22.  ticated  text  of  v.  22,  where  we  ought  to  read, 
not  "  and  the  wine  is  spilled,  and  the  bottles 
will  be  marred,"  but  "  and  the  wine  perisheth, 

V.  26.  and  the  bottles."  Finally,  v,  26  is  rendered 
more  definite  by  the  correct  reading,  "  in  the 
days  when  Abiathar  was  high  priest."  ^ 

Chap.  iii.      In  the  third  chapter  little  change  is  needed. 

V.  15.  We  note  only  that  in  v.  15  the  power  of  cast- 
ing out  devils  is  alone  spoken  of  in  the  true 

V.  18.  text;  that  in  v.  18  we  are  told  of  "  Simon  the 
zealot,"  not  of  "Simon  the  Canaanite;"  and  that 

V.  29.  in  V.  29  our  Lord's  words  are  not,  that  he  who 
blasphemeth  against  the  Holy  Ghost  is  "in 

1  Comp,  p.  144. 


186     Effect  produced  hy  Textual  C^^iticism  iqoon  the 

danger  of  eternal  damnation,"  but  that  he  is 
"  guilty  of  an  eternal  sin."  ^ 

Chap.  iv.      In  the  fourth  chapter  we  are  told  in  v.  1  not 

V.  1.  only  of  "a  great  "but  of  "a  very  great  multitude." 

V.  10.  In  V.  10  the  true  reading  is  valuable  in  its  bear- 
ing upon  the  fragmentary  nature  of  our  Gospels, 
"asked  of  Him  the  parables,"  not  ''the  parable." 

V.  12.  In  V.  12  we  ought  to  read,  not  "lest  at  any  time 
they  should  be  converted,  and  their  sins  should 
be  forgiven  them,"  but,  with  a  special  reference 
to  the  point  immediately  in  hand,  "  lest  at  any 
time  they  should  be  converted,  and  it  should 

V.  40.  be  forgiven  them."  In  v.  40  we  ought  to  read, 
not  "  How  is  it  that  ye  have  no  faith  ? "  but, 
"Have  ye  not  yet  faith  ?" 

Chap.  V.  In  the  fifth  chapter  the  changes  that  require 
to  be  made  are  few   and   unimportant.     We 

V.  18.  mention  only  that,  at  v.  18,  the  Evangelist  tells 
us  that  the  man  just  cured  came  to  our  Lord  not 
so  much  "  when  He  was  come  into,"  as  "  when 
He  was  entering  into  the  ship;"  and  that  at 

'0.  36.  V.  36  the  relation  of  all  the  parties  spoken  of 
to  one  another  is  better  brought  out  by  attend- 
ing to  what  appears  to  have  been  the  original 
statement  of  the  Evangelist,  "  but  Jesus^ 
heeding  not  the  word  that  was  spoken,  saith 
unto  the  ruler,"  etc. 

Chap.  vi.       In  the  sixth  chapter  a  true  reading  in  v.  2 

V.  2.  brings   out   more   clearly   that   effect   of  our 

1  Comp.  p.  158. 


Text  of  the  New  Testament  in  its  successive  Boohs.  187 

Lord's  words  on  the  people,  upon  which  it  is 
characteristic  in  St.  Mark  to  dwell  with  a  pecu- 
liar emphasis,  not  "  many  hearing,"  but  "  the 
many  hearing  Him  were  astonished."     In  v. 

17.  11.        11  the  latter  half,  from  "verily  I  say  unto  you," 

V.  15.  ought  to  be  omitted.  The  difficulty  of  v.  15 
is  at  once  removed  by  reading  with  the  correct 
text,  "  It  is  a  prophet  as  one  of  the  prophets ;" 
and  the  still  greater  difficulty  of  the  second 

'0.  20.  last  clause  of  v.  20  is  equally  removed,  while  the 
strangely  mingled  elements  in  the  character  of 
Herod  are  at  the  same  time  powerfully  brought 
out,  when  we  read,  not  "  and  when  he  heard 
Him  he  did  many  things,"  but,  as  we  ought  to 
read,  "  and  when  he  heard  Him  he  was  greatly 

V.  38,  perplexed."  In  v.  38  the  love  of  graphic  delin- 
eation so  characteristic  of  St.  Mark,  receives 
fresh  illustration  by  the  omission  falling  to  be 
made  of  the  copula  between  "go  "  and  "  see," 
not  "  go  and  see,"  but  "  go,  see." 

Cha2').  vii.     In  the  seventh  chapter  the  close  of  v.   4 

V.  4.  ought  to  read  simply  "  as  the  washing  of  cups, 

and  pots,  and  brasen  vessels,"  all  mention  of 
"  tables  "  being  omitted.     The  latter  half  of  v. 

V.  3.  8  ought  likewise  to  be  omitted,  the  verse  clos- 
ing  with   "the   tradition   of  men."     At   the 

V.  12.  beginning  of  v.  12  the  word  "  and  "  has  no 
claim  to  be  in  the  text,  and  it  will  be  observed 
that,  by  omitting  it,  v.  12  will  so  connect  itself 
with  V.  11  as  to  render  the  louo:  clause  in  ita- 


188    Effect  ijrodiiced  hy  Textual  Criticism  upon  the 

lies  at  tlie  close  of  the  latter  verse  unnecessary. 

V.  16.        The  whole  of  v.  16  wants  authority ;  and  in 

V.  19.  V.  19  our  Lord's  words  end  with  the  word 
"  draught,"  after  which  the  Evangelist  makes 
the  striking  and  beautiful  comment  upon  what 
he  has  recorded,  "  this  He  said,  making  all 
meats  clean." 

Chap.  viii.  In  the  eighth  chapter  any  changes  required 
are  few  and  unimportant.     The  chief  are  as 

V.  21.  follows.  In  V.  21  the  question  of  our  Lord 
ought  to  have  the  simpler  form,  "  Do  ye  not 

V.  26.  yet  understand  ? "  In  v.  26  the  last  clause  falls 
to  be  omitted,  and  the  charge  of  Jesus  to  the 
man  whom  he  had  cured  is  only  "  do  not  even 

V.  37.  go  into  the  town ;"  while  v.  37,  connected  with 
the  preceding  verse  by  "  for  "  instead  of  "  or," 
assigns  a  reason  why  the  whole  world  should, 
as  compared  with  the  soul,  be  spoken  of  as 
valueless,  "  For  what  shall  a  man  give  in 
exchange  for  his  soul  ?" 

Chap.  ix.  In  the  ninth  chapter  the  first  change  re- 
quired is  one  that  may  justly  be  regretted, 
depriving  us  as  it  does  of  one  of  those  expres- 
sions of  St.  Mark  by  which  the  graphicness  of 
his  style  of  narrative  is  illustrated.     It  occurs 

V.  3.  in  V.  3,  where  the  words  "  as  snow  "  must  be 

omitted,  and  the  loss  is  only  partially  compen- 
sated for  by  the  fact  that  the  word  "  so  "  ought 
to  be  inserted  before  white,  "  so  as  no  fuller  on 

V.  19.        earth  can  so  white  them."     In  v.  19  the  words 


Text  of  the  Nexo  Testament  in  its  successive  Books.  189 

of  our  Lord  ought  to  appear  as  an  answer  not 
only  to  the  father  of  the  child  but  to  the  whole 
assemblage,  "  He  answereth  them,"  not  "  him, 
V.  20.        and  saith."     In  v.  20  the  proper  reading  re- 
quires a  stronger  word  than  "  tare  ;"  we  must 
V.  23.        read  "  tare  him  greatly."     In  v.  23  we  gain  by 
noting  the  correct  words  even  more  than  we 
lost  in  V.  3.     The  word  "  believe  "  goes  out, 
and  "  if  thou  canst  "  is  not  the  direct  language 
of  Jesus ;  it  is  the  taking  up  on  the  part  of 
Jesus  of  the  father's  "  if  thou  canst "  in  the 
preceding  verse.     The  father  says,  v.  22,  "if 
thou  canst  do  anything ;"  then  Jesus  replies, 
"  If  thou  canst !  all  things  are  possible  unto 
V.  24.        him  that  believeth."     In  v.  24,  however,  we 
again  lose  something  by  the  loss  of  "with 
V.  26.        tears "  and   "  Lord."     In  v.  26  we  ought  to 
V.  29.        read  "  the  many  "  instead  of  "  many ;"  in  v.  29 
V.  42.        to   omit   "  and   fasting ;"   in  v.   42   to   insert 
V.  44.        "great"  before  "millstone."    Two  verses,  v.  44 
vv.  46, 47.  and  v,  46,  go  out  wholly ;  and  in  v.  47  the 
last  word  of  the  verse,  "  fire,"  must  be  omitted. 
Chap.  X.       In  the  tenth  chapter  only  one  or  two  changes 
V.  21.        need  be   noted.      In  v.  21  the  words  "  take 
V.  29.        up  the  cross  "  are  to  be  left  out.     In  v.  29  the 
correct   reading   presents   us  with   a  slightly 
different  order  in  the  mention  of  the  relatives 
there  spoken  of,  while  one  of  them,  "  or  wife," 
V.  50.        has  to  be  altogether  omitted.     In  v.   50  we 
ought  to  find  St.  Mark's  more  graphic  touch 


190     Effect  produced  ly  Textual  Criticism  tqyon  the 

in  the  words,  "  and  he,  casting  away  his  gar- 
ment, leapt  up,  and  came  to  Jesus." 
Chap.  xi.       In  the  eleventh  chapter  the  word  "  fields  " 
V.  8.  requires  to  be  substituted  in  v.  8  for  "  trees," 

and  thus  its  true  rendering  can  be  given  to 
the   Greek  word    translated   in   our   version 
"  branches."     That  word   properly  applies  to 
leaves,  and  its  true  sense  is  much  more  suitable 
to  the  act  described.     To  have  thrown  down 
branches  in  the  path  of  the  ass  on  which  our 
Lord  was  riding  could  only  have  checked  its 
V.  10.        progress.     In  v.  10  we  ought  to  read  without 
the  words  ''  in  the  name  of  the  Lord."     In  v. 
V.  24.        24  it   is  not    "  believe  that  ye  receive,"  but 
V.  26.        "  believe  that  ye  received  them ;"    and  v.  26 

ought  to  be  omitted. 
Chap.  xii.      In  the  twelfth  chapter  the  true  reading  of  v, 
V.  4.  4  is  simpler  than  in  our  text,  "  and  him  they 

wounded  on  the  head  and  handled  shamefully." 
V.  22.        So  also  in  v.  22,  "  and  the  seven  left  no  seed." 
V.  23.         In  V.  23  the  tautology  is  removed  by  the  cor- 
rect reading,  which  omits  "  when  they  shall 
V.  27.        rise ;"  and  in  v.  27  the  increased  terseness  of 
the  true  text   at  once  commends  itself,  "ye 
-y.  31.        greatly  err."     In  v.  31   a  certain  amount  of 
embarrassment  is  removed  by  omitting,  as  we 
ought  to  do,  any  mention  of  likeness  between 
the  two   commandments  spoken  of,  and   by 
reading  only  "  and  the  second  is  this."     In  v. 
V.  33.        33  the  words  "  and  with  all  the  soul  "  go  out ; 


Text  of  the  Neio  Testament  in  its  successive  Boohs.  191 

V.  43.        and  in  v.  43  the  vividness  of  the  picture  is 
preserved  by  our  finding  in  the  best  authenti- 
cated text,  not  "  all  they  which  have  cast,"  but 
"  all  they  which  are  casting  into  the  treasury." 
Chap.  xiii.     In  the  thirteenth  chapter  a  slight  change  in 
V.  3.  the  reading  of  v.  3  affords  a  fresh  illustration 

of  the  character  of  St.  Peter.     It  is  not "  Peter, 
and  James,  and  John,  and  Andrew  asked  him 
privately,"  but  "Peter  asked  him  privately, 
V.  8.  and  James,  and  John,  and  Andrew."      In  v.  8 

the  copulas  ought  to  be  omitted,  together  with 
the  words  "  and  troubles,"  the  true  readins^  of 
the  verse  giving  us  in  English,  "  For  nation 
shall   rise   against    nation,   kingdom    against 
kingdom ;  there  shall  be  earthquakes  in  divers 
v.  11.        places  ;  there  shall  be  famines."     In  v.  11  the 
abuse  so  often  made  of  the  precept  of  Jesus 
contained   there,  is   greatly  obviated   by  the 
omission  which  should  be  made  of  "  neither  do 
V.  14.        ye  premeditate."     In  v.  14  the  words  "  spoken 
of  by  Daniel  the  prophet"  are  to  be  left  out ; 
V.  18.        and  in  v.  18  there  is  no  mention  of  "  flight "  in 
what  appears  to  be  the  true  text,  "  and  pray  ye 
that  it  be  not  in  the  winter." 
Chap.  xiv.     In  the  fourteenth  chapter  the  word  "for"  is 
to  be  substituted  for  "  but"  at  the  be^inninq-  of 
vv.  2,  9.    V.  2,  and  in  V.  9  "the,"  not  "this,"  ought  to  pre- 
V.  22.        cede  the  word  "  gospel."     In  v.  22  "  Take  "  is  to 
V.  2o.        be  read  instead  of  "Take,  eat;"  in  v.  23  "a  cup" 
V.  24.        is  to  be  substituted  for  "  the  cup ;"  and  in  v.  24 


192    Effect  ^produced  hy  Textual  Criticism  upon  the 

V.  27.  tlie  word  "  new"  is  to  be  omitted.  In  v.  27  we 
are  to  omit  "  because  of  me  this  night."     In  v. 

V.  40.  40  the  correct  reading  has  tlie  same  importance 
in  its  bearing  npon  the  conduct  of  the  disciples 
as  that  abeady  noticed  at  Matt.  xxvi.  43,  not 
"  He  found  them  asleep  again/'  but  "  He  again 
found  them  sleeping ; "  and  the  reason  given 
is  not  merely  that  "  their  eyes  were  heavy,"  but 

V.  51.  that  they  were  "very  heavy."  In  v.  51  we 
are  to  read  "  and  they  laid  hold  on  him,"  instead 
of  "and  the  young  men  laid  hold  on  him;" 

V.  70.  and  in  v.  70  the  words  of  the  bystanders  to  St. 
Peter  close  with  "  Galilean/'  the  remainder  of 
the  verse,  "  and  thy  speech  agreeth  thereto," 
having  no  sufficient  authority. 

Chap.  XV.      In  the  fifteenth  chapter,  the  words  of  Pilate 

V.  4.  in  V.  4  are  not  "  behold  how  many  things  they 

witness  against  Thee/'  but  "  how  many  things 

V.  8.  they  accuse  Thee  of."     In  v.  8  the  multitude 

is  not  represented  as  "  crying  aloud "   but  as 
"  going  up,"  in  all  probability  to  the  tribunal 

V.  14.  upon  which  Pilate  sat.  In  v.  14  "the  more" 
is  to  be  left  out  before  ''  exceedingly ;"  and  the 

vv.  28,30.  whole  of  v.  28  is  to  be  omitted.  In  v.  30  we 
ought  to  read  "save  Thyself,  coming  down  from 

V.  45.  the  cross ; "  and  in  v.  45  we  are  told  of  "  the 
corpse  "  instead  of  "  the  body." 

Chap.  xvi.     In  the  sixteenth  chapter  the  word  "  quickly  " 

V.  8.  is  to  be  omitted  in  v.  8.     The  whole  of  the 

vv.  9-20.  following  passage  from  v.  9  to  the  end  of  the 


Text  of  the  Ncvj  Testa7nent  in  its  successive  Books.  193 

chaj)ter,  can  hardly  be  regarded  as  a  part  of 
the  original  Gospel  of  St.  Mark.  It  is  rather 
an  addition  that  had  been  made  to  it  at  a  very 
early  age,  but  whether  in  the  lifetime  of  the 
Evangelist  or  not,  it  is  impossible  to  say. 
Although,  however,  not  from  the  pen  of  St. 
Mark  himself,  it  was  so  soon  and  so  generally 
recognised  by  the  Church  as  possessed  of  can- 
onical authority,  that  no  hesitation  need  be 
felt  at  allowing  it  to  stand.  AVhen  we  have  it 
where  it  is,  the  changes  produced  on  it  by  the 
application  of  the  principles  of  textual  criticism 
are  not  sufficiently  important  to  require  notice. 
Before  leaving  this  Gospel  we  have  only  to 
add,  that  it  contains  many  narrative  passages 
in  which  the  present  ought  to  be  substituted 
for  the  j)ast  tense ;  and  that  the  word  "  straight- 
way "  or  "  immediately"  has  several  times  been 
lost  sight  of  in  the  text  received  by  us.  Correc- 
tion of  the  text  on  these  two  points  is  important, 
as  increasing  the  vividness  of  the  narration,  and 
as  illustrating  the  peculiarities  of  St.  Mark. 

Gospel  of  St.  Luke. 

Chaj).  i.  In  the  first  chapter  of  this  Gospel  the  clos- 
V.  28.  ing  words  of  v.  28,  "blessed  art  thou  among 
V.  29.  women,"  have  to  be  omitted,  and  in  v.  29  "  when 
V.  42.  she  saw  him,"  as  formerly  noticed.^  In  v.  42 
Elisabeth  is  represented  as  speaking  out  with  "a 

1  See  p.  6. 

N 


194    Effect  produced  hy  Textual  Criticism  iqjon  the 

loud  cry/'  ratlier  than  with  "a  loud  voice." 
V.  66.        In  Y.  66  the  last  words  ought  to  be  connected 
with  those  going  immediately  before  by  the 
substitution  of  "  for  indeed  "  for  "  and ;"  and  in 
'y.  75.        V.  75  the  true  expression  is  simpler  than  that 
of  the  English  version,  "  all  our  days  "  instead 
of  "  all  the  days  of  our  life." 
Chap.  ii.        In  the  second  chapter  we  ought  to  read  in 
V.  5.  V,  5  of  Mary  "his  betrothed"  rather  than  of 

Mary  "  his  espoused  wife."     The  angels'  song 
V.  14.^,     in  V.  14  takes  the  interesting  form,  "  Glory  to 
God  in  the  highest,  and  on  earth  peace  among 
men   of  his   good  pleasure,"  i.e.  among  men 
V.  33.        whom  He  hath  loved.^     In  v.  33  the  Evange- 
list's statement  is  not  that  "Joseph  and  his 
mother,"  but  that  "  his  father  and  mother  mar- 
velled at  those  things  which  were  spoken  of 
V.  38.        him."     In  v.  38   ''•  God  "  ought  to  be  substi- 
tuted for  "  the  Lord,"  and  "  the  redemption  of 
Jerusalem "   for  "  redemption  in  Jerusalem." 
V.  40.        In   V.   40   the   words    "  in   spirit "   have    to 
V.  43.        be  omitted ;  and  in  v.  43  a  correction  similar 
to  that  in  v.  33  has  to  be  made,  "  his  parents  " 
being  substituted  for  "  Joseph  and  his  mother." 
Chap.  iii.      In  the  third  chapter  little  change  need  be 
fi'.  10,12,  noted.     In  v.  10,  12,  and  14  we  ought  to  read 
14.      "  what  must  we  do  "  for  "  what  shall  we  do." 
V.  17.        In  V.  17  the  object  of  the  "fan"  is  described 
when  we  read  with   the   best   authenticated 

1  Coinp.  pp.  94,  160. 


Text  of  the  New  Testament  in  its  siieccssive  Boohs.  195 

text,  "  whose  fan  is  in  His  hand,  thoroughly  to 

V.  19.        purge  His  floor ;"  and  in  v.  19  *'  his  brother's 

wife  "  is  better  established  than  "  his  brother 

Philip's  wife." 

Chcqo.  iv.      In  the  fourth  chapter  it  is  better  to  read  in 

u  L  V.  1  "in  the  wilderness,"  than  "into  tlie  wil- 

■V.  2.  derness,"  and  in  v.  2  to  omit  "  aftel-ward."     In 

V.  4.  V.  4  our  Lord's  reply  to  Satan  is  simply  "  that 

man  shall  not  live  by  bread  alone,"  the  words 

that  follow  having  no  claim  to  their  place  in 

the  text.     No  mention  of  a  "  high  mountain  " 

V.  5.         .belongs   to  v.  5,  the  simple  statement  being 

that  "  the  devil  led  him  up  and  showed  him 

V.  8.  all  the  kingdoms/'  etc.     In  v.  8  we  must  omit 

V.  18.        "  Get  thee  behind  me,  Satan,  for ;"  in  v.  18  "  to 

V.  41.        heal  the  broken-hearted;"   and  in  v.  41   the 

V.  43.        word  "  Christ"     In  v.  43  the  correct  readino- 

gives  us,  "  for  therefore  was  I  sent "  rather 

than  "  for  therefore  am  I  sent." 

C%a2y.  V.        In  the  fifth  chapter  the  words  "  by  him"  in 

vv.  15,17.  v.  15  are  to  be  omitted ;  and  in  v.  17  we  ought 

to  read  "  the  power  of  the  Lord  was  present  to 

his  healing  them."     The  opening  words  of  v. 

/;.  30.        30  are  "But  the  Pharisees  and  their  scribes;" 

V.  33.        and  in  v.  33  by  omitting  "  why  do  "  we  have  a 

statement  made,  not  a  question  asked.     In  v. 

V.  36.        36  the  changes  requiring  to  be  made  lend  a 

fresh  light  altogether  to  the  verse,  "and  he 

spake  also  a  parable  unto  them  ;  No  man  rend- 

eth  a  piece  from  a  new  garment  and  putteth  it 


196     Effect  iwodiiced  hy  Textual  Criticism  iqjon  the 

upon  an  old,  else  he  will  both  rend  the  new, 

and  the  piece  from  the  new  will  not  agree 

with  the  old."     A  double  mischief,  it  will  be 

observed,  is  thus  spoken  of  by  our  Lord.     The 

unnatural  mixture  destroys  both  the  old  and 

the  new,  just  as,  in  the  next  verse,  the  new 

wine  is  spilled  and  the  old  bottles  perish.     In 

V.  38.        V.  38  the  words   "  and  both  are  preserved," 

are   to  be   omitted,  and   in  like   manner  the 

u  39.        word   "  straightway  "   in   v.  39.      Finally,   in 

this  last  verse  "  good  "  ought  to  be  read  for 

"  better." 

Chap.  \i.      In  the  sixth  chapter  the  difficult  expression 

V.  1.  of  V.  1,  *'  on  the  second  sabbath  after  the  first," 

must  yield  to  the  more  intelligible  "  on  a  sabbath 

V.  10.        day."     In  v.  10  we  ought  to  leave  out  "  whole 

V.  17.        as  the  other."     In  v.  17  we  have  to  substitute 

"  a  great  company"  for  "the  company"  of  His 

V.  25         disciples.     In  v.  25  the  word  "  now"  has  to  be 

V.  36.        inserted    before   "  full."      In  v.  36    the    two 

words  "  therefore  "  and  "  also  "    have    to    be 

V,  42.        omitted,  and  in  v.  42  the  word  "  either."     In 

V.  48.        V.  48  we  must  substitute  in  the  last  clause, 

"  it  was  well  built "  for  "  it  was  founded  upon 

a  rock." 

Chap.  vii.     In  the   seventh   chapter  the  last  words  of 

V.  10.        V.  10,  "  that  had  been  sick,"  must  be  omitted. 

v.l^.        In  V.   11  we  ought   to  read  "His  disciples" 

V.  19.        for  "many  of  His  disciples."     In  v.  19  "to  the 

Lord  "  ought  to  be  substituted  ibr  "  to  Jesus," 


Text  of  the  New  Testament  in  its  successive  Books.  197 

V.  22.        and  in  v.  22  for  ''Jesus  "  we  should  read  "  He." 

V.  28.        In  V.  28  "  for  "  at  the  beginning  of  the  verse 

goes  out,  and  the  words  that  follow,  "  I  say 

unto  you,"  are,  "  among  those  that  are  born  of 

w^omen  there  is  not  a  greater  than  John."     In 

V.  38.        V.  38  the  true  text  makes  the  meaning  clearer, 

"  and  stood  behind  at  His  feet,  weeping."     In 

V.  42.        V.  42  the  ^vords  "  Tell  me  "  must  be  omitted ; 

V.  44.         and  in  v.  44  the  correct  text  gives  us  only 

"  with  her  hair  "  instead  of  "  with  the  hairs  of 

her  head." 

Chap.  viii.    In  the  eighth  chapter  "  unto  them"  ought  to 

vv.  3,  12.  l:ie  read  for  "  unto  him"  in   v.  3,  and  in  v.  12 

"  they  that  have  heard"  for  "  they  that  hear." 

In  V.  24  "  then  he  awoke  "  is  to  be  read  for 

"then  he  arose."    In  vv.  26  and  37  "Gerasenes" 

is  to  be  substituted  for  "  Gadarenes,"  and  in 

v.  27  "  for  a  long  while  had  worn  no  clothes  " 

for  "  and  ware  no  clothes."     In  v.  45  the  last 

clause,  "and  sayest  thou,  Who  touched  me  ?  " 

has  to  be  omitted,  and  in  v.  48  the  words  "  be 

of  o'ood  comfort."     In  v.  52  "  for"  ousjht  to  be 

inserted  after  "  Weep  not ;"  and  in  v.  54  the 

clause  relating  to  Christ's  putting  them  all  out 

has  to  be  removed,  for  we  read  only,  "  and  He 

took  her  by  the  hand  and  called,  saying,  Maid, 

arise." 

Chap.  ix.      In  the  ninth  chapter  we  ought  to  read  in 

vv.  1,  3.     V.  1  "  He  called  the  twelve  together."    In  v.  3 

"  a  staff"  is  to  be  substituted  for  "  staves."    In 


V. 

24. 

OT.26,3 

V. 

27. 

V. 

45. 

V. 

48. 

V. 

52. 

V. 

54. 

198 


Effect  2^Tod2iced  hj  Textual  Criticism  iqyon  the 


V.  7.  V.  7  tlie  words  "by  him"  are  to  be  omitted. 

V.  10.        In  V.  10  the  true  readiiigr  of  the  last  half  of 

o 

the  verse  is  only  "'  and  he  took  them,  and 
went  aside  privately  into  a  city  called  Beth- 

-z;.  11.  saida."  In  v,  11  we  are  told,  not  that  Jesus 
"received/'    but  that  he    "welcomed"  them. 

V.  35.        In  V.  35  the  words  spoken  out  of  the  cloud 

V.  48.  are,  "  This  is  my  chosen  Son.''  In  v.  48  the 
last  words  are,  the  same  "  is,"  not  "  shall  be," 

V.  49.  great.  In  v.  49  the  words  of  John  imply  not 
so  much  that  he  succeeded  in  forbidding  as 
that  he  made  the  effort  to  forbid,   "  and  we 

V.  50.  were  forbidding  him."  In  v.  50  "  you"  is  to 
be  twice  substituted  for  "us"  in  the  last  clause ; 
and  in  v.  57  the  word  "  Lord"  is  to  be  left  out. 
In  the  tenth  chapter  "  to  our  feet  "  is  to  be 
substituted  for  "  on  us  "  in  v.  11.  In  v.  15  we 
have  the  same  change  to  make  as  that  already 
made  on  Matt.  xi.  23,  "And  thou,  Capernaum, 
shalt  thou  be  exalted  to  heaven  ?  Thou  shalt 
be  thrust  down  to  hell."  In  v.  19  we  ought  to 
read  "  I  have  given  "  for  "  I  give  ;"  in  v.  20  to 
omit  "  rather"  before  "  rejoice ;"  and  in  v.  21  to 
substitute  "  in  the  Holy  Spirit"  for  "in  spirit." 
In  V.  35  the  words  "  when  he  departed"  have 
no  claim  to  be  in  the  text ;  and  in  vv.  39  and 
41  "the  Lord's"  and  "the  Lord"  oucjht  to 
take  the  place  of  "  Jesus' "  and  "  Jesus." 

Chap.  xi.  In  the  eleventh  chapter,  the  form  of  the 
Lord's  prayer  must  undergo  considerable  mo- 


V. 

57. 

Cha^J.  X, 

V. 

11. 

V. 

15. 

V. 

19. 

V. 

20. 

V. 

2L 

V. 

35. 

V. 

39.. 

V. 

41. 

Teo:t  of  the  New  Testament  in  its  successive  Books.  199 

dification,   for   several    clauses   ought   to   l)e 

V.  2.  omitted — in  v.  2,  "  which  art  in  heaven/'  to- 

gether with  the  first  word  "  our,"  and  the  third 
petition,  "  Thy  will  be  done,  as  in  heaven,  so  in 

V.  4.  earth ; "  while  we  must  again  omit  in  v.   4 

V.  29.  "but  deliver  us  from  evil."  In  v.  29  we  ought 
to  read  "  this  generation  is  an  evil  generation," 
and  to  omit  "the  prophet"  after  Jonas.     In  v. 

r.  34.        34  "  thine  eye  "  has  to  be  substituted  for  "  the 

V.  44.  eye ; "  and  in  v.  44  "  scribes  and  Pharisees, 
hypocrites,"  must  be  omitted.     The  Avords  of 

V.  48.  Jesus  in  v.  48  are  simply  "  and  ye  build,"  not 
"  and  ye  build  their  sepulchres."     The  opening 

V.  53.  words  of  verse  53  ought  to  be,  "And  when  He 
was  come  out  from  thence ;"  and  all  that  truly 

V.  54.  belongs  to  v.  54  is  "  laying  wait  for  Him,  to 
catch  something  out  of  His  mouth." 

Cha2J.  xii.  In  the  twelfth  chapter  we  ought  to  read 
only  "  fear  not "  instead  of  "  fear  not  therefore" 

vv.  7,15.  in  V.  7;  and  in  v.  15  to  insert  "all"  before 

V.  29.  "  covetousness."  In  v.  29  ''And  what  ye  shall 
drink  "  takes  the  place  of  "  or  what  ye  shall 

V.  31.  drink."  In  v.  31  "  His  kingdom"  is  to  be  sub- 
stituted for  "  the  kingdom  of  God,"  and  "  all " 
before  "these  things"  is  to  be  omitted.     In 

'V.  54.  v.  54  we  ought  to  read  "  in  the  west"  for  "out 
of  the  west ; "  and  the  question  of  our  Lord  in 

V.  56.  V.  56  is  "  How  is  it  that  ye  do  not  know  how 
to  discern  this  time  ?" 

Clicijp.  xiii.     In  the  thirteenth  chapter  we  ought  to  read 


200    Effect  prodticed  hy  Textual  Criticism  wpon  the 

V.  3.  in  V.  3  "in  like  manner"  for  "likewise;"  in 

V.  15.        V.  15  "  ye  hypocrites"  for  "  thou  hypocrite ;"  in 
V.  24.        V.  24  "  door  "  for  "  gate,"  a  reading  by  which 

the  connection  between  that  and  the  following 

verse  is  much  more  clearly  brought  out  than 
V.  25.  it  would  otherwise  be.  In  v.  25  "  Lord"  ought 
V.  31.        only  to   be   read  once.      In  v.  31  the  word 

" hour"  is  to  be  substituted  for  " day;"  and  in 
V.  35.        V.  35  we  are  to  read  "your  house  is  left  unto 

you  "  without  the  addition  of  "  desolate." 
Chap.  xiv.     In   the    fourteenth    chapter   few    changes 

worthy  of  notice  have  to  be  made.  At  the 
V.  3.  end  of  v.  3  "or  not"  ought  to  be  inserted -in 

the  question  of  Jesus  there  recorded.  The 
V.  5.  change  of  "ass"  into  "son"  in  v.  5  has  been 

■V.  10.        already  noticed.^     In  v.  10  "all"   has  to  be 
V.  17.        inserted  before  "  them;"  while  in  v.  17  it  has  to 

be  omitted  before  "things."  Lastly,  increased 
V.  27.        force  is  given  to  v.  27,  when  we  read  that  the 

follower  of  Jesus  must  bear,  not  "  his  "  cross 

merely,  but  "  his  own  "  cross. 
Chap.  XV.      In  the  fifteenth  chapter  also  few  changes 
V.  17.        are  needed.     In  v.  17  we  ought  to  read  in  the 

last  clause,  "  and  I  perish  here  with  hunger  ?" 
V.  22.  In  V.  22  the  word  "quickly"  ought  to  be  added 
V.  32.        to  "  bring  forth  ;"  and  in  v.  32  "  again"  after 

"  alive"  is  to  be  omitted. 
Chap.  xvi.     The  sixteenth  chapter  also  calls  for  little 

change.     The  most  important  is  probably  that 
^  Comp.  page  9. 


Text  of  the  New  Testament  in  its  successive  Books.  201 

V.  9.  falling  to  be  made  in  v.  9,  where  we  ought  to 

read  not,  "  that  when  ye  fail,"  but  "  that  when 

V.  18.        it  fails."     In  v.  18  "he  that"  ought  to  be  sub- 

V.  21.        stituted  for  "  whosoever."    In  v.  21  we  are  told 

not  of  "  the  crumbs"  but  of  "  the  things  which 

V.  26.        fell  from  the  rich  man's  table  ;"  and  in  v.  26 

the  last  clause  of  the  verse  must  be  read,  "  and 

that  none  may  pass  from  thence  to  us." 

Chap.  xvii.     In  the  seventeenth  chapter  "  against  thee" 

V.  3.  is  to  be  omitted  in  v.  o ;  "  in  a  day"  after  the 

V.  4.  second  "  seven  times "  in  v.  4 ;  and  "  him  ?  I 

V.  9.  trow  not"  after  "commanded"  in  v.  9,  while 

in  this  last  verse  "  that  servant"  is  also  to  be 

V.  21.        changed  into    "  his  servant."      In  v.  21  the 

V.  23.        second  "lo"    has  to  be  omitted;  and  v.   23 

ought   to   have    the    simpler    reading,    "  see 

there  or  here,"  instead  of  "  see  here ;  or  see 

V.  33.        there."      In  v.   33   we    are  to  read  not    ''  to 

save"  but  "  to  gain  his  life." 
Chap,  xviii.  In  the  eighteenth  chapter  we  shall  notice 
only  two  changes,  but  both  important;  the 
first  as  making  intelligible  what  has  little 
or  no  meaning  as  it  stands,  the  second  as  add- 
ing interesting  emphasis  to  the  words.  The 
V.  7.  first  is  in  v.  7,  where  for  the  last  clause,  "though 

•  He  bear  long  with  them,"  we  ought  to  read 

"  and  is  He  long  suffering  in  their  case  ?"   The 
V.  28.        second  is  in  v.  28,  where  Peter's  words  run, 
"  Lo,  we  have  left  our  own  and  followed  thee." 
Chaj).  xix.     In   the   nineteenth    chapter   we   ought   to 


202    Effect  produced  hj  Tcdual  Criticism  upon  the 

V.  5.  omit  "  and  saw  him"  in  v.  5  ;  to  read  "  tlie 

V.  20.         other"    for    "  another"    in  v.    20  ;    "  if  these 

V.  4:0.        shall"  for  "if  these  should"   in  v.   40;    and 

"  in  this   day"  instead  of  "  in  this  thy  day  " 

vv.  42, 45.  in  v.  42.     In  v.  45  we  are  to  read  only  "  and 

He  went  into  the  temple,  and  began  to  cast 

out  them  that  sold." 

C%a2:>.  XX.     In  the  twentieth  chapter  "  a  thing"  is  to  be 

substituted  for   "  one  thing"   in   v.    3,     The 

last  words  of  v.  13,  "when  they  see  him,"  are 

to  be  left  out.     The  same  thincf  is  to  be  done 

o 

with  "  come "  in  v.  14 ;  with  "  Why  tempt 
ye  me  ?"  in  v.  23  ;  and  with  the  greater  por- 
tion of  V.  30,  which  will  then  only  read,  "  and 
the  second."  Lastly,  in  v.  40  the  ''  and"  at 
the  beginning  of  the  verse  ought  to  give  place 
to  "for." 
Chap.  xxi.  In  the  twenty-first  chapter  the  word  "  here" 
V.  6.  ought  to  be  inserted  after  ."  left "    in  v.    6  ; 

V.  8.  while  ''therefore"  in  the  last  clause  of  v.   8 

V.  25.        ought  to  be  omitted.     The  latter  part  of  v.  25 
will  run,  when  the  necessary  textual  correc- 
tion has  been  made,  "  distress  of  nations  in 
perplexity  at  the  roaring  of  sea  and  waves  ;" 
V.  36.        and  in  V.  36  we  shall  have  to  replace  "that 
ye  may  be  accounted  worthy"  by  "that  ye 
may  prevail." 
Chap>.  xxii.     In   the  twenty-second  chapter  we  are  to 
V.  14,         omit  the  word  "twelve"  in  v.  14;  and  in  v. 
V.  18.         18  to  insert  " from  henceforth "  after  "drink" 


V. 

o. 

■V. 

13. 

V. 

14. 

V. 

23. 

V. 

30. 

V. 

40. 

V. 

30. 

V. 

31. 

V. 

57. 

V. 

60. 

V. 

62. 

V. 

64. 

Text  of  the  Nev:  Testameiit  in  its  siiccessive  Boohs.  203 

In  V.  30  "  and  sit"  will  give  way  to  "  and  ye 
shall  sit."  In  v.  31  we  are  to  omit  "  and  the 
Lord  said."  In  v.  57,  when  amended,  we 
must  read  "  and  he  denied,  saying,  I  know 
him  not,  woman ; "  in  v.  60  "a  cock"  for 
"the  cock;"  and  in  v.  62  ''he"  for  "Peter." 
Finally,  in  v.  64  we  ought,  omitting  several 
words,  to  r-ead  "  and  when  they  had  blindfolded 
V.  68.        Him,  they  asked  Him,"  etc.;  and  in  v.  68  only 

"  and  if  I  also  ask  you,  ye  will  not  answer." 

Cliax).  xxiii.     In  the  twenty-third  chapter,  in  v.  2,  the 

V.  2.  best   authenticated   text   sets   before   us    the 

accusation  against  our  Lord  in  a  much  more 

forcible  manner  than  is  otherwise  the  case,  for 

we  ought  to  read  "our  nation"  for  "the  nation," 

and  to  insert  "  and  "  before  the  last  clause, 

"  and  saying  that  He  Himself  is  Christ  a  King." 

In  V.  6  we  ought  to  read  "  it "  for  "  Galilee ; " 

in  V.  8  to  omit  "  many  things ; "  in  v.  15  to 

substitute  "  for  he  sent  him  back  to  us  "  for 

"  for  I  sent  you  to  him ; "  in  v.  23  to  omit  "and 

of  the  chief  priests  ; "  in  v.  35  to  omit  "  with 

them  ;"  and  to  reduce  v.  38  to  the  form,  "  And 

a  superscription  also  was  over  Him,  This  is  the 

King  of  the  Jews."     In  v.  42  we  have  to  omit 

"  Lord ;  "  and  in  v.  51  "  also  Himself" 

Chaip.  xxiv.     In   the    twenty-fourth    chapter    the   last 

V.  1.  clause  of  v.  1,  "  and  certain  others  with  them," 

V.  17.        is  to  be  omitted.     In  v.  17  our  Lord's  question 

ends  with  the  words  "  as  ye  w^alk,"  and  then 


V. 

6. 

V. 

8. 

V. 

15. 

V. 

23. 

V. 

35. 

V. 

38. 

V. 

42. 

V. 

51. 

204    Effect  'produced  hy  Tcxtucd  Criticism  tq)07i  the 

the  Evangelist  adds  "and  they  stood  sad."  In 
V.  42.  V.  42  the  words  "  and  of  an  honeycomb  "  have 
V.  4:4:.        no  just  claim  to  be  in  the  text.     In  v.  44  the 

Saviour  says,  "  These  are  my  words,"  etc. ;  and 
V.  46.  in  V.  46  he  says,  "  Thus  it  is  written  that 
■V.  49.  Christ  should  suffer,"  etc.  In  v.  49  we  ought 
V.  50.        to  omit   "of  Jerusalem;"   in  v.   50  to  read 

"  towards  Bethany  "  for  "  to  Bethany ;  "  and  in 
V.  53.        v.  53  to  omit  "  Amen." 

Gospel  of  St.  John. 

C%a2y.  i.        In  the  first  chapter  of  this  Gospel  we  have  to 

■V.  16.        change  "and"  at  the  beginning  of  v.  16  into 

V.  18.  "  for."  The  great  change  in  v.  18  of  "  the  only 
begotten  Son  "  into  "  the  only  begotten  God  " 

v.  19.  has  already  been  discussed.^  In  v.  19  we  ought 
to  read  "  sent  unto  Him  from  Jerusalem  priests 

V.  24.  andLevites."  In  v.  24  the  true  reading,  one  emi- 
nently characteristic  of  St.  John's  tendency  to 
return  back  on  the  beginning  of  his  statements, 
seems  to  give  us,  "  And  they  had  been  sent 

V.  27.  from  the  Pharisees."  In  v.  27  we  are  to  read, 
"  even  He  that  cometh  after  me,  whose  shoe's 

V.  28.  latchet  I  am  not  worthy  to  unloose."  In  v.  28 
"Bethany"  must  take  the  place  of  "Bethabara;" 

V.  39.  in  V.  39  "ye  shall  see"  of  "see;"  while  the 
omission  of  "  for  "  at  the  beginning  of  the  last 
clause  of  this  verse,  is  an  illustration  of  a 
change  needing  to  be  often  made  in  this  Gospel, 

^  Comp.  page  162. 


Text  of  the  Neiu  Testament  in  its  successive  Books.  205 

the  suppression  of  the  copula,  when  a  short 

statement  is  added  to  what  went  before.      In 

V.  41.        V.  41  we  ought  to  read,  "Christ"  instead  of  "the 

V.  42.         Christ ;"  in  v.  42  "  John  "  instead  of  "  Jona  ;  " 

V.  51.        and  in  v.  51  to  omit  "hereafter."  ^ 

CJiaj).  ii.       In  the  second  chapter  one  change  only  need 

be  noted,  that  of  "  hath  eaten  me  up "  into 

V.  17.        "  shall  eat  me  up  "  in  v.  17. 

C%02).  iii.      In  the  third  chapter  a  very  important  change 

V.  13.        has  to  be  made  in  v.  13,  where  the  last  words 

of  the  verse,  "  which  is  in  heaven,"  ought  to  be 

i\  16.        omitted.    In  v.  16  we  oug^ht  to  read,  not  "His," 

V.  17.         but  "the"  only  begotten  Son;"  and  in  v.  17  in 

like  manner  "the  Son"  takes  the  place  of  "his 

?.".  25.         Son."     In  v.  25  we  are  told  not  of  a  question 

between  some  of  John's  disciples   and  ''the 

Jews,"  but  of  one  between  them  and  "  a  Jew." 

Cha}').  iv.       In  the  fourth  chapter  two  changes  only  may 

be  mentioned,  but  both  of  them  important.    The 

V.  35.        first  occurs  at  v.  35,  where  the  word  "already" 

ought   to   be  transferred   to  the   next   verse, 

bringing  out  far  more  beautifully  the  real  force 

of  our  Lord's  words,  which  will  then  run,  a 

slight  change  being  made  in  the  form  of  the 

English  present  tense,  "  Lift  up  your  eyes  and 

look  on  the  fields,  that  they  are  white  unto 

harvest ;  already  he  that  reapeth  is  receiving 

wages  and  gathering  fruit  unto  life  eternal." 

V  42.        The  second  change  is  at  v.  42,  where,  dropping 

1  Comp.  p.  127. 


206    Effect  'prodnccd  hy  Textual  Criticism  upon  the 

tlie  words  ''  the  Christ,"  the  Samaritans  only 
say  that  they  know  that  "  this  is  indeed  the 
Savionr  of  the  world." 
Chap.  V.  In  the  fifth  chapter  important  changes  have 
also  to  be  made.  Of  the  first  of  these,  the 
V.  3.  omission  of  the  last  words  of  v.  3  and  of  the 

V.  4.  whole  of  V.  4,  we  have .  already  spoken.^     The 

V.  16.        next  is  the  omission  in  v.  16  of  "  and  sought  to 
V.  30.        slay  him."    Then  in  v.  30  we  are  to  read  "  Him" 
V.  44.         instead  of  "  the  Father ; "  and,  lastly,  in  v.  44, 
"  from  God  only  "   at  the  close  of  the  verse 
ought  ratlier  to  be  "  from  the  only  One." 
Chap.  vi.       In  the  sixth  chapter  the  interesting  change 
V.  11.        to  be  made  on  v.  11  has  been  already  noticed.^ 
The  confusion  at  present  reigning  in  the  pas- 
vv.  22-24.  sage,  vv.  22-24,  is  dispelled  by  one  or  two  slight 
emendations  of  the  text,  leading  to  the  omission 
of  "  when"  in  v.  22  and  of  "  also  "  in  v.  24.    Let 
us  make  these,  put  out  the  brackets  of  v.  23, 
and  note  that  the  "shipping"  of  v.  24  refers  to  the 
"other  boats"  of  v.  23,  and   all  is  clear.     At 
V.  40.        the  beginning  of  v.  40  "  for  "  should  be  intro- 
duced instead  of  "  and,"  thus  binding  this  verse 
V.  47.        to  that  immediately  preceding.     In  v.  47  the 
words  "  on  me  "  have  to  be  omitted,  as  also  in 
V.  51.        V.  51  the  words  "which  I  will  give"  coming 
V.  58.        after  the  word  flesh.     In  v.  58  we  ought  to 
read  "  the  fathers  "  for  "  your  fathers ;"  and  in 
V.  65.        v.  65  "the  Father  "  instead  of  "my  Father." 
^  Comp.  page  16.  ^  Comp.  pages  113,  146. 


Text  of  llic  New  Testament  in  its  successive  Books.  207 

V.  69.        The  confession  of  v.  69  should  run,  "  and  we 
believe  and  are  sure  that  thou  art  the  Holy 
One  of  God." 
Chap.  yii.      In  the  seventh  chapter  the  word  "very" 
V.  26.        before  "  Christ  "  in  v.  26  has  to  be  omitted,  ^s 
V.  53.        well  as  the  whole  of  v.  53,  which  forms  the 
opening  verse  of  the  story  of  the  woman  taken 
in  adultery. 
C7ia2J.  viii.    In  the  eighth  chapter  by  far  the  most  inter- 
esting and  important  change  to  be  made  is  the 
exclusion  from  the  text  of  St.  John  of  the  story 
of  the  woman  taken  in  adultery,  extending  from 
vv.  1-11.   the  first  to  the  eleventh  verse  of  the  chapter. 
It  would  be  foreign  to  the  object  now  in  hand 
to  argue  the  question,  and  it  is  enough  to  say 
that  this  conclusion  is  at  length  adopted  by  all 
textual  critics.     At  the  same  time  there  is  so 
much  reason  to  believe  that  the  narrative  is 
historical,  and  its  beauty  is  so  great,  that  it 
might  with  all  propriety  be  given  in  a  note. 
V.  14        In  V.  14  the  last  words  of  the  verse  ought  to 
be  read,  "  but  ye  know  not  wdience  I  come,  or 
V.  46.        whither  I  go."     In  v.  46  the  "  and  "  before  the 
last  half  of  the  verse  is  to  be  omitted ;  and  in 
V.  59.        V.  59  the  same  has  to  be  said  of  the  concluding 
words,  "  going  through  the  midst  of  them,  and 
so  passed  by." 
Chajy.  ix.      In  the  ninth  chapter  the  emendation  of  the 
V.  4.  text  by  the  best  authorities  gives  us  in  v.  4 

words  beautifully  pointing  out  the  identifica- 


208    Effect  produced  hy  Textual  Criticism  upon  the 

tion  of  the  Eedeemer  with  His  people,  "  We 

must  work"  instead  of  "I  must  work  the 
V.  8.  works  of  Him  that  sent  me."    In  v.  8  we  have 

to  substitute  "  a  beggar"  for  "  blind ; "  and 
^.11.        in  V.  11  to  read  simply  *'  Go  to   Siloam"  for 

"  Go  to  the  pool  of  Siloam."  Lastly,  the  im- 
V.  35.        portant  emendation  has  to  be  made  in  v.  35, 

"  Dost  thou  believe  on  the  Son  of  Man  ? "  for 

"  Dost  thou  believe  on  the  Son  of  God  ?  " 
Cliai-).  X.       In  the  tenth  chapter    "  when  he   putteth 
V.  4.  forth  all  his  own"  has  to  be  read  in  v.  4  for 

"  when  he  putteth  forth  his  own  sheep."  In 
V.  14.        V.  14,  "  and  know  my  sheep,  and  am  known  of 

mine,"  must  give  way  to  *'and.  know  my  sheep, 
V.  26.         and  my  sheep  know  me."     In  v.  26  "  as  I  said 

unto  you"  at  the  end  of  the  verse  has  to  be 
'V.  38.         omitted.     In  v.   38    "  understand"    is  to  be 

substituted  for    "  believe  ;  "    and    "  I  in  the 

Father"  for  "  I  in  Him." 
Chap.  xi.      In  the  eleventh   chapter  not  much  change 

need  be  noted.  *'  But  I  know  that  even  now" 
V.  22.  in  V.  22  ought  to  be  changed  into  "  and  now 
r.  31.        I   know."      In   v.    31    "saying,   she  goeth" 

gives  place  to  "  supposing  that  she  goeth ; " 
V.  41.        and  in  v.  41  the  words  "  from  the  place  where 

the  dead  was  laid  "  are  to  be  omitted. 
Chap.  xii.     In  the  twelfth  chapter  the  words  "  which 
V.  1.  had  been  dead  "  in  v.  1  ought  to  be  left  out. 

V.  7.  The  language  of  our  Lord  in  v.  7  is  not  "  against 

the  day  of  my  burying  hath  she  kept  this," 


Text  of  the  New  Testament  in  its  successive  Boohs.  209 

but  ''  that  she  may  keep  this  against  the  day 
of  my  burying."     In  the  words  of  the  Evange- 
V.  41.        list  in  v.  41  *'  because"  is  to  be  substituted  for 
V.  47.        "  when ;  "  and  v.  47  ought  to  read  "  if  any  man 
hear  my  sayings,  and  keep  them  not,"  instead  of 
"  if  any  man  hear  my  words,  and  believe  not." 
Chap.  xiii.     In    the   thirteenth   chapter   an   important 
V.  2.  emendation  occurs  in  v.  2,  where  we  have  to 

read,   not    "  and    supper   being   ended,"    but 
V.  24.        *'  supper  having  begun."     In  v.  24  the  state- 
ment of  the  Evangelist  is  more  graphic  than 
in  our  English  text.     It  is  that  Simon  Peter 
beckoned  to  John,  "  and  saith  unto  him,  Tell 
us  who  it  is  of  whom  He  speaketh."  ^  .  The 
answer  of  Jesus  to  the  beloved  disciple  in  v. 
i;.  26.        26  gains  also  by  the  true  reading  in  graphic 
power,  "  He  it  is  for  whom  I  shall  dip  the  sop, 
and  shall  give  it  to  him." 
Chap.  xiv.     In  the  fourteenth  chapter  the  word  "  for  " 
ought  to  be  inserted  before  the  last  clause  of 
vv.  2,  4.    V.  2  ;  and  v.  4  ought  to  read,  "  And  whither  I 
V.  12.        go,  ye  know  the  way."     In  v.  12,  as  in  other 
passages    too    numerous    to    mention,   "  the 
Father  "  takes  the  place  of  "  my  Father ; "  and 
V.  16.        in  V.  16  the  verb  "  be  "  is  to  be  substituted  for 
V.  28.        "abide."     In  v.  28  "because  I  go  unto  the 
Father  "  ought  to  be  read  for  ''  because  I  said, 
?;.  30.        I  go  unto  the  Father;"  and  in  v.  30  we  are 
told  of  "  the  prince  of  the  world  "  rather  than 
of  ''  the  prince  of  this  world." 
1  Comp.  p.  145. 


210      Effect  produced  ly  Textual  Criticism  upon  the 

Chap.  XV.      In  the  fifteenth  chapter  "  be  "  is  to  be  snb- 

V.  11.  stituted  for  "remain"  in  v.  11,  and  no  other 
change  in  this  chapter  need  be  noted. 

Chap.  xvi.     In  the  sixteenth  chapter  we  ought  to  read 

V.  16.  in  V.  16  "A  little  while  and  ye  see  me  no 
more  "  for  "  a  little  while  and  ye  shall  not  s§e 
me,"  and  the  last  words  of  the  verse,  "  because 

V.  23.  I  go  to  the  Father,"  are  to  be  omitted.  In  v.  23 
the  change  called  for  is  important,  for  we 
ought  to  read  "And  in  that  day  ye  shall 
ask  me  nothing.  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you, 
Whatsoever  ye  shall  ask  the  Father,  He  will 
give  it  you  in  my  name." 

Chap.  xvii.     In  the  seventeenth  chapter  the  last  clause 

V.  4.  of  V.  4  is  to  be  read  not  with  its  verb  in  a 

narrative  tense,  but  in  a  participle,  "  having 
finished  the  work  which  Thou  gavest  me  to 

-y.  11.  do."  In  V.  11  an  important  change  in  the 
connection  of  "  name  "  has  to  be  introduced, 
"  Holy  Father,  keep  them  in  Thy  name  which 
Thou  hast  given  me,"  "  name  "  belonging  to  the 
words  that  follow,  not  to  those  that  precede ; 

V.  12.  and  the  same  remark  applies  to  v.  12,  "  While 
I  was  with  them"  (omitting  *4n  the  world"), 
''  I  kept  them  in  Thy  name  which  Thou  hast 

V.  20.  given  me."  In  v.  20  the  present  tense  "believe  " 
is   to   be   substituted   for   the   future   "shall 

V.  21.  believe;"  and  in  v.  21  how  wonderfully  is 
the  meaning  of  our  Lord  enhanced,  and  the 
thought  of  the  spiritual  nature  of  His  kingdom 
deepened  in  us,  when  we  find  Him  praying 


Text  of  the  New  Testament  in  its  successive  Books.  211 

for  His  disciples,  as  the  condition  of  tlie 
world's  conviction,  not  ''  that  they  also  may  be 
one  in  us,"  but  "  that  they  also  may  be  in  us, 
that  the  world  may  believe  that  Thou  hast 
sent  me." 

Chap,  xviii.  In  the  eighteenth  chapter  we  mention 
only  two  changes  that  are  demanded  by  the 
evidence,  but  how  much  the  text  is  improved 
by  them  will  be  at  once  manifest  to  every 

V.  11.  reader.  In  v.  11  we  ought  to  find  not  "  Put 
up  thy  sword  into  the  sheath,"  but  "  Put  up 

V.  20.  the  sword  into  the  sheath  ; "  and  in  v.  20  we 
ought  to  read,  not  "  in  the  temple,  whither  the 
Jews  always  resort,"  but  "in  the  temple, 
whither  all  the  Jews  resort." 

Chap.  xix.  In  the  nineteenth  chapter  the  words  "  by 
the  law"  are  to  be  substituted  for   "by  our 

vv.*l,Vj.  law"  in  V.  7;  and  in  v.  17  the  true  reading 
gives  us,  "  And  He  bearing  His  cross  for  Him- 

V.  20.  self,  went  forth,"  etc.  In  v.  20,  instead  of  words 
leading  to  the  rendering  of  our  English  version, 
the  best  authenticated  text  supplies  words  that 
ought  to  be  translated  "for  the  place  of  the 
city  where  Jesus  was  crucified  was  nigh." 

Chap.   XX.     In   the   twentieth   chapter   there   is   little 

V.  16.  chamre  calliuGj  for  notice  to  be  made.  In  v.  16 
"Eabboni"   is   said   to   be   "in  the  Hebrew 

V.  19.  tongue;"  and  in  v.  19  the  word  "assembled" 
has  to  go  out. 

Chap.  xxi.     In  the  twenty-first  chapter  "  immediately  " 


212     Effect  produced  hy  Textual  Criticism  upon  the 

V.  3.  ouglit  to  be  omitted  in  v.  3 ;    "  John"  to  be 

vv.15,17.  substituted  for  "  Jonas  "  in  vv.  15  and  17;  and 
V.  25.        the  word  "  Amen  "  in  v.  25  lias  no  claim  to  be 
in  the  text. 

The  Acts  of  the  Apostles. 

Chap.  i.         In  the  first  chapter  of  this  book  the  word 
V.  8.  "my"  ought  to  be  substituted  in  v.  8  for  "unto 

V.  14.        me,"  thus  giving  us  "my  witnesses."  In  v.  14  the 
words  "  and  supplication  "  are  to  be  omitted ; 
V.  15.        and  in  V.  15  "brethren"  is  to  be  substituted 

for  "  disciples." 

Chap.  ii.         In  the  second  chapter  the  words  "  one  to 

V.  7.  another  "  are  to  be  omitted  in  v,  7 ;  the  word 

m22,23.  "also"  in  v.  22;  and  in  v.  23  "by  the  hand 

of  the  wicked "  is  to  be  substituted  for  "  by 

V.  30.         wicked  hands."     In  v.  30  we   are   to   read, 

"  Therefore  being  a  prophet,  and  knowing  that 

God  had   sworn  with  an  oath  to  him,  that 

of  the  fruit  of  his   loins  should  sit   on   his 

V.  40.        throne."      In  v.  40  "  them  "  ought  to  be  added 

V.  41.        after  " exhort;"  and  in  v.  41  "gladly"  is  to  be 

omitted. 
Chap.  iii.  In  the  third  chapter  the  shorter  reading 
V.  11.  "he"  is  to  be  adopted  in  v.  11  for  "the  lame 
V.  18.  man  which  was  healed;"  and  in  v.  18  we  are 
to  read  "  had  showed  by  the  mouth  of  all  the 
prophets  that  His  Christ  should  suffer."  In 
i;.  20.  V.  20  "  appointed "  is  to  be  substituted  for 
V.  21.        "preached."     In  v.  21  "all"  is  to  be  omitted. 


Text  of  the  New  Testament  in  its  successive  Books.  213 

V.  22.        In  V.  22  the  first  clause  ought  to  read  simply 
V.  26.        **  Moses  truly  said ; "  and  in  v.  26  we  are  to 

leave  out  the  word  "  Jesus." 
Chap.  iv.       In  the  fourth  chapter  we  ought  to  read  in 
V.  8.  V.   8  simply  of  "  elders,"   not  of   "  elders  of 

V.  17.        Israel."     In  v.  17  "straitly"  is  to  be  omitted. 
V.  24.        In  V.  24  the  first  words  of  the  prayer  there 

given  are  "  Lord,  Thou  which  hast  made ; "  its 
V.  25.        words  in  v.  25  have  to  be  changed  into  "  who 

by  the  mouth  of  our  father  thy  servant  David 
V.  27.        by  the  Holy  Ghost  hast  said;"  and  in  v.  27,  "  in 

this  city"  is  to  be  inserted  after  "x)f  a  truth." 
V.  36.        Lastly,  "  Joses  "  in  v.  36  is  to  be  changed  into 

"  Joseph." 
Chajy.  V.       In  the  fifth  chapter  "  these  things  "  in  v.  5  is 
V.  5.  to  be  omitted.      The  beginning  of  v.  16  ought 

V.  16.        to  run,  "  There  came  also  the  multitude  from 
V.  23.        tlie  cities  round  about  Jerusalem."     In  v.  23 

the  words  "  truly  "  and  "  without"  have  no  good 

claim  to  be  in  the  text ;  and  the  same  remark 

applies  to  the  mention  of  "  the  high  priest "  in 
vv.  24, 34.  V.  24.     In  v.  34  "  men "  is  to  be  substituted 

for  "  apostles ; "  "  overthrow  them  "  for  "  over- 
V.  39.  throw  it "  in  v.  39 ;  and  "  the  name  "  for  "  His 
V.  41.        name  "  in  v.  41. 

Chap.  vi.       In  the  sixth  chapter  two  changes  only  need 
V.  8.  be  noted,  that  in  v.  8  Stephen  is  said  to  have 

been  full  of  "grace  and  power"  rather  than  of 
V.  13.        "  faith  and  power ; "  and  that  in  v.  13  the  word 

"  blasphemous  "  has  no  proper  place. 


214      Effect  produced  hy  Textual  Criticism  upon  the 

Chap.  vii.     In  the  seventh  chapter  we  ought  to  read 

V.  16.        in  V.    16  "Emmor  in  Sychem"  rather   than 

V.  18.         "Emmor,  the  father  of  Sychem;"  in  v.  18  to 

V.  22.        add  "  over  Egypt "  after  "  arose ; "  in  v.   22 

to  insert  "  his  "  before  "  words  and  deeds ; "  in 

V.  30.        V.  30  to  omit  "  of  the  Lord  "  after  "  angel ; "  in 

V.  37.        V.  37  to  omit  the  last  words  of  the  verse,  "  him 

V.  48.        shall  ye  hear ; "  and  in  v.  48  to  read  that  the 

Most  High  dwelleth  not  "in  what  is  made 

with  hands  "  rather  than  "  in  temples  made 

with  hands." 

Chap.  viii.     In  the  eighth  chapter  the  words  in  v.  10  of 

V.  10.        those  who  gave  heed  to  Simon  are  not,  "  This 

man  is  the  great  power  of  God,"  but  "This 

man  is  what  is  called  the  great  power  of  God." 

V.  12.        In  V.  12  "  the  things  "  after  "  preaching  "  ought 

to   be   omitted.     For   "the  Holy   Ghost"   in 

V.  18.        V.  18  we  are  to  read  "the  Spirit;"  for  ''pray 

V.  22.        God"  in  v.   22    "pray   the  Lord;"   and  the 

V.  37.        whole  of  V.  37  is  to  be  omitted.^ 

Chap.  ix.     In  the  ninth  chapter  the  last  words  of  v.  5 

vv.  5,  6.    together  with  the  -first  part  of  v.  6  are  to  be 

left  out,  so  that  we  shall  read  '^I  am  Jesus 

whom  thou  persecutest;  but  arise,"  etc.      In 

V.  8.  V.  8  "nothing"  is  to  be  substituted  for  "no 

V.  20.        man;"   in  v.  20  "Jesus"  for  "Christ;"  and 

V.  31.        in  v.    31    "the  church"  for  ''the  churches," 

together  with  the  corresponding  change  from 

the  plural  to  the  singular  in  the  verbs  "  edified  " 

and  "  multiplied." 

1  Comp.  pp.  16,  136. 


Text  of  the  New  Testament  in  its  suceessive  Books.  215 

Chap.  X.       In  the  tenth  chapter  the  last  clause,  of  v.  6, 

V.  6.  "he  shall  tell  thee  what  thou  oughtest  to  do," 

u  11.  is  to  be  left  out.  In  v.  11  we  ought  to  read 
"  and  saw  heaven  opened,  and  a  certain  vessel 
descending  as  a  great  sheet,  by  four  corners  let 

V.  12.  down  upon  the  earth;"  and  in  v.  12  the  vessel 
is  described  as  containing  "  all  manner  of  four- 
footed  beasts,  and  creeping  things  of  the  earth, 

V.  30.  and  fowls  of  heaven."  In  v.  30  we  must  read 
"Four  days  ago  until  this  hour  I  was  at  the 

V.  33.  ninth  hour  praying,"  etc.  In  v.  33  "of  the 
Lord"   is   to   be   substituted  for   "of  God;" 

V.  48.  and  in  v.  48  "  of  Jesus  Christ"  for  "  of  the 
Lord." 

Chap.  xi.  In  the  eleventh  chapter  the  changes  to  be 
made  are  hardly  of  a  kind  demanding  special 
notice  for  our  present  purpose. 

Chap.  xii.  In  the  twelfth  chapter  one  change  only  need 
be  noted,  that  of  *' to  Jerusalem"  for  ''from 

V.  25.        Jerusalem"  in  v.  25. 

Chap.  xiii.  In  the  thirteenth  chapter  an  interesting 
change,  though  the  evidence  is  somewhat  in- 

V.  18.  conclusive,  should  probably  be  made  in  v.  18 
by  the  substitution  of  "  he  bore  them  about  as 
a   nurse"    for    "  suffered   he   their   manners." 

vv.  19,  20.  In  vv.  19  and  20  the  changes  to  be  made  lead 
to  a  rendering  considerably  different  from  that 
of  the  authorized  text,  "  and  when  he  had 
destroyed  seven  nations  in  Canaan,  he  gave 
them  their  land  as  an  inheritance  for  about 


216      Effect  produced  hy  Textual  Criticism  upon  the 

four  hundred  and  fifty  years  ;  and  after  these 
things  he  gave  them  judges  until  Samuel  the 

V.  26.        prophet."     In  v.  26  "  us"  is  to  be  substituted 

V.  42.  for  "  you"  in  the  last  clause.  In  v.  42  we 
ought  to  read  "  And  when  they  were  going 

-y.  45.  out  they  besought,"  etc.;  and  in  v.  45  ''con- 
tradicting and"  has  to  be  omitted. 

Chap.  xiv.  In  the  fourteenth  chapter  "  you"  is  to  be 
substituted  for  "  us  "  and  "  your  "  for  "  our  " 

V.  17.  in  V.  17.  Any  other  changes  requiring  to  be 
made  in  this  chapter  are  unimportant. 

Chap.  XV.     In   the    fifteenth   chapter  "you"  is   to   be 

v.  7.  substituted  for  "us"  in  v.  7;  and  "  them '^^liT 

'vv.  8,  11.  V.  8  is  to  be  Emitted.  In  v.  11  we  ought  to 
read  simply   "  the  Lord  Jesus "  without  the 

vv.Vj,!^.  addition  of  "  Christ."  In  v.  17  and  18  we  are 
to  read  from  the  close  of  the  former  verse, 
"saith   the   Lord,  Who    made    these    things 

V.  23.  known  from  the  beginning."  In  v.  23  the 
letter  of  the  Council  begins  "  the  apostles  and 
the  elders,  (who  are)  brethren,  send  greeting." 

V.  24.  In  V.  24  we  have  first  to  omit  "  which  went 
out"  after  "certain,"  and  then  to  read  the 
latter  part,  "  subverting  your  souls,  to  whom 

V.  33.  we  gave  no  commission."  In  v.  33  we  ought 
to  read  "those  who  had  sent  them"  instead  of 

V.  34.        "  the  apostles  ;  "  and  v.  34  is  to  be  omitted.    In 

u  37.  V.  37  we  are  told  that  "  Barnabas  wished,"  not 
that  he  "  determined  to  take  with  them  John;" 

V.  40.        and  in  v.  40  it  is  "the  grace  of  the  Lord" 


Text  of  the  Neio  Testament  in  its  successive  Boohs.  217 

rather   than  "the   grace   of   God"  to   which 
Paul  is  recommended. 
Chap.  xvi.     In   the   sixteenth    chapter   an    interesting 

V.  7.  change  has  to  he  made  in  v.  7,  where  we  are 

to  read  in  the  last  clause,  "  but  the  spirit  of 

V.  13.  Jesus  suffered  them  not."  In  v.  13  the  writer 
of  the  narrative  tells  us  of  the  place  by  the 
river  side  to  which  they  went  out,  that  it  was 
one  "where  w^  supposed  that  there  was  a 
place  of  prayer."     The  damsel  possessed  with 

V.  17.  the  spirit  of  divination  -  cries  in  v.  17  that 
Paul  and  his  companions  show  unto  "  you," 
not  unto  "  us,"  the  way  of  salvation ;  and  in 

V.  31.  V.  31  the  language  of  Paul  and  Silas  to  the 
jailer  is  "believe  on  the  Lord  Jesus,"  rather 
than  "  believe  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ." 

Chajp.  xvii.     In  the  seventeenth  chapter  we  are  to  omit 

V.  5.  in  V.  5  the  words   "  which  believed  not "  after 

V.  26.  "  Jews."  In  v.  26  two  important  changes  have 
to  be  made,  by  the  omission  first  of  the  word 
"blood"  after  ''one,"  and  then  of  "before"  after 

V.  27.  "times."  In  v.  27  "God"  is  to  be  substituted 
for  "the  Lord." 

Chaio.  xviii.  In  the  eighteenth  chapter  an  important 
emendation  of  the  text  has  to  be  introduced  in 

V.  5.  V.   5,  where  we  are  told,  not  that  Paul  was 

"pressed    in   the   spirit,"    but   that   he   was 

V.  21.  "  earnestly  occupied  with  the  word."  In  v.  21 
the  words  "  must  by  all  means  keep  this  feast 
that  Cometh  at  Jerusalem,  but"  are  to  be  left  out. 


218      Effect  produced  hy  Textual  Criticism  upon  the 

Chap.  xix.     In  the  nineteenth  chapter,  in  v.  4,  we  are  to 
V.  4.  read,    "  on   Jesus  "   rather    than   "  on   Christ 

V,  33.        Jesus;"  in  v.  33  "they  thrust,"  not  "they  drew, 
V.  37.        Alexander  out  of  the  multitude;"  and  in  v.  37 

the  town-clerk  speaks  of  Diana  not  as  "  your  " 

but  as  "our"  goddess. 
Chap.  XX.     In  the  twentieth  chapter  the  words   "  into 
V.  4.  Asia  "  are  to  be  omitted  in  v.  4.      In  v.  7  the 

word  "  we  "  is  to  be  substituted  for  "  the  dis- 
V.  8.  ciples ;"  and  again  for  "  they  "  in  v.  8.     In  v. 

15  the  evidence  seems  to  require  the  omission 

of  a  clause,  for  whose  introduction  into  the 

text    it    is     extremely  difficult    to    account, 

"and  tarried  at  Trogyllium." 
Chap,  xxi.     In  the  twenty-first  chapter  we  are  to  omit 
V.  8.  ''that  were  of  Paul's  company"  in  v.  8  ;  in 

V.  20.        V.  20  to  read,  ''they  glorified  God"  for  "they 
V.  25.        glorified  the  Lord;"    and  in  v.   25   to  omit 

"  that  they  observe  no  such  thing,  save  only." 
Chap.  xxii.  In  the  twenty-second  chapter  we  ought  to 
??.  9.  omit  "and  were  afraid"  in  v.  9 ;  as  also  "unto 

'yi;.20,30.  his  death"  in  v.  20.     In  v.  30  we  ought  to  read, 

"all  the  council"  for  "all  their  council." 
Chap,  xxiii.     In  the  twenty-third  chapter  an  interesting 
V.  6.  change  has  to  be  made  in  v.  6,  "  the  son  of 

Pharisees"  for  "the  son  of  a  Pharisee."  At  the 
V.  9.  end  of  v.  9  we  miss,  in  the  received  text,  the 

graphic  and  abrupt  termination  belonging  to 

the   best   authenticated   text,    in   which    the 

words  "  let  us  not  fight  against  God"  do  not 


Text  of  the  New  Testament  in  its  successive  BooJcs.  219 

occur,  the  cry  of  the  scribes  being  only  "  We 

find  no  evil  in  this  man :  but  if  a  spirit  or  an 
V.  12.        angel  hatli  spoken  by  him — ."   In  v.  12  we  are 

told  that   "the   Jews,"   not  "certain  of  the 

Jews,"  banded  together. 
Chaj).  xxiv.     In  the  twenty-fourth  chapter  the  latter 
w.  6,  7.     part  of  v.  6,  the  whole  of  v.  7,  and  the  first  part 
V.  8.  of  V.  8,  ought  to  be  left  out,  so  that  we  pass  at 

once  from  "whom  we  took"  in  v.  6  to  "by 
V.  10.        examining  of  whom  "  in  v.  8.      In  v.  10  "the 

more"  before  "cheerfully"  is  also  to  be  left  out; 
V.  24.        and  in  v.  24,  the  word  "  Jesus  "  is  to  be  added 

to  "Christ." 
Chap.  XXV.     In  the  twenty-fifth  chapter  we  are  told  not 

of  "the  high  priest,"  but  of  "the  high  priests" 
vv.  2,  6.     in  V.  2 ;  and  in  v.  6,  not  of  "ten,"  but  of  "eight 

or  ten  days." 
Cha2:>.  xxvi.     In  the  twenty-sixth  chapter  we  ought  to 
V.  7.  read  in  v.  7,   "accused  of  Jews"  rather  than 

V.  17.        "accused  of  the  Jews ;"  in  v.  17  to  omit  "now;" 
-y.  21.        and  in  v.  21  to  omit,  as  was  done  in  v.  7,  the 

definite  article  before  "Jews." 
Chap,  xxvii.     In  the  twenty-seventh  chapter  the  words 
V.  2.  pf  V.  2  have  to  undergo  some  change,   "  and 

entering  into  a  ship  of  Adramyttium,  which 

was  about  to  sail  to  the  coasts  of  Asia,  we 
V.  19.  launched."  In  v.  19  "they"  has  to  be  substi- 
v.  34.        tuted  for  "we;"  and  in  v.  34   "perish"  for 

"faU." 
Chap,  xxviii.     In  the  twenty-eighth  chapter  "  we  "  has 


220      Effect  produced  ly  Textual  Criticism  upon  the 

V.  1.  to  take  tlie  place  of  "  tliey  "  in  v.  1 ;  and  the 

V.  29.        whole  of  v.  29  has  to  be  left  out. 

The  Epistle  to  the  Eomans. 

Chap.  i.        The    only   changes    worth  noticing  in  this 
V.  16.        chapter  are  that  in  v.  16  we  should  read  "For 
I  am  not  ashamed  of  the  gospel"  instead  of  " For 
I  am  not  ashamed  of  the  gospel  of  Christ;"  and 
V.  31.        that  in  v.  31,  "implacable"  should  be  omitted. 
Chap.  ii.       Instead   of  the  words    "Behold,   thou  art 
called  a  Jew,"  in  v.  17,  Ave  should  read  "But 
if  thou  art  called  a  Jew."    No  other  change  of 
importance  is  required. 
Chap.  iii.      We  should  read  "■  But  if  the  truth"  instead 
'D.  7.  of  "For  if  the  truth"  in  v.  7;  and  the  words  "and 

'0.  22.        upon  all"  in  v.  22  should  probably  be  omitted. 
Chap.  iv.      A  remarkable  various  reading  occurs  in  this 
chapter.     A,  B,  C,  ^,  with  some  other  ancient 
authorities,  omit  "not"  in  v.  19,  so  that  we 
should  probably  read  "  he  considered  his  ow^n 
body,  now  become  dead,"  instead  of  "  he  con- 
sidered not,"  etc. 
Chap.  V.      Except  the  important  change  already  noticed 
V.  1.  as  required  in  v.  1,  no  alteration  of  consequence 

is  called  for  in  this  chapter.^ 

Chap.  vi.      In  this  chapter  we  have  simply  to  notice 

V.  11.        that  "  our  Lord"  should  be  omitted  in  v.  11 ; 

and   that   instead   of  "obey   it   in   the  lusts 

V.  12.        thereof"  in  v.  12,  we  should  read  "obey  the 

lusts  thereof" 

1  Comp.  p.  167. 


Text  of  the  New  Testament  in  its  successive  Boohs.  221 

Chap.  vii.       A  somewhat  interesting  change  is  required 

V.  6.  at  V.  6.     Instead  of  "  that  being  dead  wherein 

we  were  held"  the  words  should  run  "we 
having  died  to  that  wherein  w^e  were  held." 

v.  18.  V.  18  should  read  thus,  "For  I  know  that 
there  dwelleth  not  in  me,  that  is,  in  my  flesh, 
any  good;  for  to  will  is  present  with  me,  but 
to  perform  that  which  is  good  is  not." 

Chap.  viii.  The  correct  reading  of  v.  1  has  been  already 
spoken   of^     We  should  read    "  helpeth  our 

i;.  26.  infirmity"  instead  of  "infirmities"  in  v.  2G, 
and,  as  formerly  noticed  "  for  us "  in  the  same 
verse  should  be  omitted."  ^ 

Chap.  ix.  No  change  calling  for  notice  is  required  in 
this  chapter. 

Chap.  X.        We  should  read  "  for  them  "  instead  of  "  for 

V.  1.  Israel "  in  v.  1 ;  and  instead  of  the  common 

V.  15.  text  in  v.  15  there  should  be  read,  "How 
beautiful  are  the  feet  of  them  that  brincj  o-lail 
tidings  of  peace,  that  bring  glad  tidings  of 
good  things ! "  It  is  somewhat  d6ubtful  whether 
we  should  substitute   "word  of  Christ"    for 

V.  17.        "word  of  God"  in  v.  17. 

Chap.  xi.      So,  again,  it  is  doubtful  whether  these  words 

V.  6.  in  V.  6,  "  but  if  it  is  of  works,  it  is  no  more 

grace:    otherwise   work   is   no    more    work" 

V.  22.  should  not  be  omitted.  At  v.  22,  for 
"  toward  thee,  goodness "  read  "  toward  thee, 
God's  goodness." 

1  Comp.  p.  168.  2  comp.  p.  6. 


222      Effect  ^produced  hy  Textual  Criticism  upon  the 

Chap.  xii.  The  only  thing  calling  for  notice  in  this 
chapter  is  that  we  should  probably  read  "  But" 
V.  20.  or  "Nay  rather/'  for  "therefore"  in  v.  20, — 
"  Nay  rather,  if  thine  enemy  hunger,  feed  him." 
Chap.  xiii.  Instead  of  "  the  powers  that  be "  read 
1).  1.  "  those  that  be  "  in  v.  1,  and  omit  the  clause 

V.  9.  "  thou  shalt  not  bear  false  witness  "  in  v.  9. 

Chap.  xiv.    Instead  of  the  words  "  For  to  this  end  Christ 
both  died,  and  rose,  and  revived,  that  He  might 
V.  9.  be  Lord  both  of  the  dead  and  living  "  in  v.  9, 

read  simply  "  For  to  this  end  Christ  died  and 
lived,  that  He  might  be  Lord  both  of  the  dead 
V.  10.        and  of  the  living."      In  v.  10,  for  "judgment- 
seat  of  Christ"  read  "judgment-seat  of  God." 
Chap.  XV.      For  "  as  Christ  also  received  us  "  read  "  as 
V.  7.  Christ  also  received  you  "  in  v.  7.     Instead  of 

'y.  8.  ''  Now  "  read  "  For  "  at  the  beginning  of  v.  8  : 

vv.  23,24.  and  read  as  follows  in  vv.  23,  24,  "But  now 
having   no  longer  place   in  these  parts,  and 
having  had   these  many  years  a  longing   to 
come  to  you,  whenever  I  take  my  journey  into 
V.  29.        Spain ;  for  I  hope  to  see  you,"  etc.     In  v.  29,  for 
"  fulness  of  the  blessing  of  the  gospel  of  Christ" 
read  simply  "  fulness  of  the  blessing  of  Christ." 
Chap.  xvi.    Instead    of  "  first-fruits  of  Achaia "    read 
1).  5.  "  first-fruits  of  Asia  "  in  v.  5.   For  "  the  churches 

of  Christ "  read  "  all  the  churches  of  Christ " 
V.  16.  in  V.  16.  Instead  of  the  words  "our  Lord  Jesus 
v.  18.  Christ  read  "  our  Lord  Christ"  in  v.  18:  and 
V.  24.        probably  omit  v.  24  altogether. 


Text  of  the  New  Testament  in  its  successive  Boohs.  223 

The  First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians. 

Chap.  i.  In  this  chapter,  for  "  that  I  had  baptized  in 
V.  15.  my  own  name  "  in  v.  15  read  "  that  ye  were 
V.  20.  baptized  in  my  name;"  in  v.  20,  for  "the  wis- 
dom of  this  world  "  read  "  the  wisdom  of  the 
world;"  for  "require  a  sign"  read  "require. 
V.  22.  signs  "  in  v.  22  ;  for  "  unto  the  Greeks  "  read 
V.  23.  "  imto  the  Gentiles  "  in  v.  23  ;  for  "  in  His 
V.  29.  presence"  read  "before  God "  in  v.  29. 
Chap.  ii.  Instead  of  "  by  His  Spirit  "  read  "  by  the 
V.  10.  Spirit"  in  v.  10;  for  "the  Holy  Ghost"  read 
V.  13.        "the  Spirit"  in  v.  13. 

Chap.  iii.      For  "  who  then  is  Paul,  and  who  is  Apollos  ?" 
V.  5.  in  V.  5,  read  "  what  then  is  Paul  ?  and  what 

is  Apollos  ?" 
Chap.  iv.      In  v.  2  insert  "  here  "  so  as  to  read  "  More- 
V.  2.  over,  it  is  required  in   stewards  here  {i.e.  on 

V.  6.  earth)  that  a  man  be  found  faithful ;"  in  v.  6, 

instead  of  "  that  ye  might  learn  in  us  not  to 
think  of  men  above  that  which  is  written," 
read  "  that  in  us  ye  may  learn  this,  not  to  go 
beyond  what  is  written." 
Chap.  V.  In  v.  1,  for  "as  not  so  much  as  named  among 
V.  1.  the  Gentiles  "  read  "  as  is  not  even  among  the 

V.  7.  Gentiles;"  in  v.  7  omit  "therefore;"  and  in- 

stead of  the  words  "  For  even  Christ  our  pass- 
over  is  sacrificed  for  us  "  read  "  For  our  pass- 
over,  even  Christ,  was  sacrificed  for  us;"  omit 
V.  12.        "  also"  in  v.  12 ;  and  likewise  omit ''  therefore" 
V.  13.        in  V.  13. 


224      Effect  produced  hy  Textual  Criticism  ujpon  the 

Chap.  vi.       Insert  "  Or"  at  the  beginning  of  v.  2,  and 
V.  2.  read,  "  Or  do  ye  not  know ;"  and  omit  entirely 

V.  20.        in  V.  20  the  words  "  and  in  your  spirit,  which 
are  God's,"  reading  the  verse  thus — "For  ye 
were  bought  with  a  price ;  therefore  glorify  God 
in  your  body."  ^ 
Chap.  vii.     Instead  of  the  words  "due  benevolence"  in 
V.  3.  V.  3  read  "her  due;"   for  "that  ye  may  give 

yourselves  to  fasting  and  prayer ;   and  come 
V.  5.  together  again"  in  v.  5  read,  "  that  ye  may  be 

free  for  prayer,  and  may  be  together  again  ; " 
instead  of  "for"  read  "but"  at  the  beginning 
V.  7.  of  V.  7;  for  the  words  "the  unbelieving  wife  is 

V.  14.  sanctified  by  the  husband"  read  in  v.  14 
"the  unbelieving  wife  is  sanctified  in  the 
(believing)  brother ;"  for  "  the  wife  is  bound  by 
V.  39.  the  law"  in  v.  39  read  simply  "  a  wife  is  bound." 
Chap,  viii.  In  v.  2,  for  "think  that  he  knoweth  anything, 
V.  2.  he  knoweth  nothing  yet"  read  "  think  that  he 

knoweth  anything,  he  knoweth  it  not  yet ;"  in 
V.  4.  V.  4,  for  "  none  other  God  but  one,"  read  "  no 

V.  7.  God  but  one,"  in  v.  7,  for  "  some  with  con- 

science of  the  idol,"  read,  "  some  through  cus- 
tom with  the  idol,"  as  the  text  supported  by 
•  the  oldest  authorities. 
Chap.  ix.      In  v.  1  read,  "  Am  I  not  free  ?  am  I  not  an 
vv.  1,  20.  apostle  ?"  in  v.  20  insert  "  not  being  myself 
under  the  law,"  and  read  "  to  them  that  are 
under  the  law,  as  under  the  law,  not  being 

1  Comp.  p.  113. 


Text  of  the  New  Testament  in  its  successive  Books.  225 

V.  23.  myself  under  the  law;"  in  v.  23,  for  "And 
this  "  read  ''  And  all  things." 

Chap.  X.       In  V.  10  omit  "also"  and  read,  "as  some 

vv.  10,11.  of  them  murmured ;"  in  v.  11,  instead  of  "for 
ensamples,"   read  "by  way  of  figure:"   in  v. 

V.  23.        23    omit  "for  me,"  and  read  "all  things  are 

V.  24.  lawful ;"  in  v.  24  omit  "  every  man,"  and  read 
the  verse  thus :  "  Let  no  man  seek  his  own, 

V.  28.  but  his  neighbour's  good ;"  in  v.  28,  omit  the 
words  repeated  from  v.  26,  "  for  the  earth  is 
the  Lord's,  and  the  fulness  thereof." 

C%a2x  xi.  We  give  at  length  the  solemn  account  of  the 
liord's  Supper  contained  in  this  chapter,  as  it 
should  stand  in  the  corrected  text.     The  pas- 

m 23-29.  sage  vv.  23-29  wiU  run  as  follows:  "For  I 
received  from  the  Lord  that  which  I  also  deli- 
vered unto  you,  that  the  Lord  Jesus,  in  the 
night  in  which  He  was  betrayed,  took  bread ; 
and  when  He  had  given  thanks,  He  brake  it, 
and  said.  This  is  my  body  which  is  for  you:  this 
do  in  remembrance  of  me.  After  the  same  man- 
ner the  cup  also,  after  they  had  supped,  saying. 
This  cup  is  the  new  covenant  in  my  blood:  this 
do,  as  oft  as  ye  drink  it,  in  remembrance  of  me. 
For  as  often  as  ye  eat  this  bread,  and  drink 
the  cup,  ye  shew  forth  the  Lord's  death  till  He 
come.  Wherefore,  whosoever  eateth  the  bread, 
or  drinketh  the  cup  of  the  Lord,  unworthily, 
shall  be  guilty  of  the  body  and  the  blood  of 
the  Lord.     But  let  a  man  examine  himself,  and 


226     Effect  ^produced  hy  Textual  Criticism  topon  the 

so  let  him  eat  of  the  bread,  and  drink  of  the 

cup.     For  he  that  eateth  and  drinketh,  eateth 

and  drinketh  judgment  to  himself,  should  he 

discern  not  the  body." 

Chap.  xii.     In  v.  2  insert  "  when,"  and  read  "  Ye  know 

t'V.  2, 12.  that  when  ye  were  Gentiles;"  in  v.  12  omit 

"  one,"    and  read   "  all  the  members   of  the 

body." 

Chap.  xiii.    In  v.  3,  instead  of  the  words  "  though  I  give 

V.  3.  my  body  to  be  burned,"  the  oldest  manuscripts 

read   "though  I   give  my  body  that  I   may 

boast,"  which   some   prefer.     There  is  just  a 

difference  of  one  letter  in  the  Greek. 

Cha2y.  xiv.    In  v.  18  omit  "my,"  and  read  simply  "I 

r».  18, 25. thank   God;"  in  v.  25  omit   "and  thus"   at 

V.  35.        the   beginning ;    in   v.    35    instead    of    "  for 

women"  read  "for  a  woman." 
Chap.  XV.     In  v.   20,   omit   "  and   become,"   and   read 
-y.  20.        "  risen  from  the  dead,  the  first-fruits ;"  in  v. 
V.  4,4:.        4:4:,  Instcad  of  the  words  "  There  is   a   natu- 
ral body,  and  there  is  a  spiritual  body"  read 
"  If  there  is  a  natural  body,  there  is  also  a 
V.  47.        spiritual ;"  in  v.  47  omit  the  words  "  the  Lord," 
and  read  "the  second  man  is  from  heaven;" 
V.  55.        in  V.  55  substitute  "0  death"  for  "  0  grave," 
and  read  the  verse  thus — "  0  death,  where  is 
thy  sting  ?     0  death,  where  is  thy  victory  ?" 
Chap.  xvi.     In  v.  7,  instead  of  "  but  I  trust,"  read  "  for 
w.  7,  22.  I  trust;"   in  v.  22    omit   the   words   "Jesus 
Christ,"  and  read  "  If  any  man  love  not  the 
Lord,  let  him  be,"  etc. 


Text  of  the  New  Testament  in  its  successive  Books.  227 

The  Second  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians. 

Chap.  i.        In  V.  12  for  "  simplicity  and  godly  sincerity" 
-zw.  12,18.  read  "holiness  and  godly  sincerity;"    v.   18 
should  be  read  as  follows — "  But  God  is  faith- 
ful, that  our  word  to  you  is  not  yea  and  nay;" 
V.  20.        V.  20  is  to   be  read   thus — "For   how  many 
soever  be  the  promises  of  God,  in  Him  is  the 
Yea :  wherefore  also  by  him  is  the  Amen,  for 
glory  unto  God  by  us." 
Chap.  ii.       In  V.   10  read  as  follows — "to  whom   ye 
V.  10.        forgive  anything,  I  forgive   also;    for  indeed 
what  I  have  forgiven,  if  I  have  forgiven  any- 
thing, for  your  sakes  did  I  forgive  it  in  the 
person  of  Christ." 
Chap.  iii.      Instead  of  the  words  "  not  in  tables  of  stone, 
but  in  fleshly  tables  of  the  heart,"  read  "  not 
on  tables  of  stone,  but  on  fleshy  tables,  on 
hearts." 
Chap.  iv.      Omit  the  words  "imto  them"  in  v.  4,  and 
V.  4.  read,  "that  the  light  should  not  shine  forth;" 

V.  6.  instead  of  the  words  in  v.  6,  "  For  God,  who 

commanded  the  light  to  shine  out  of  darkness, 
hath  shined  in  our  hearts,"  read  "  For  it  is  God 
who  said.  The  light  shall  shine  out  of  darkness, 
that  shined  in  our  hearts." 
Chap.  V.        In  v.  5  omit  "also,"  and  read  "who  gave 
vv.  5,  12.  unto  us  the  earnest  of  the  Spirit;"  in  v.  12 
omit  "  For,"  and  read  "  we  are  not  recommend- 
V.  17.        iiig;"  in  V.  17  omit  "all,"  and  read  "behold 


228     Effect  ^produced  hy  Textual  Criticism  upon  the 

V.  21.        they  are  become  new:"  in  v.  21  omit  "For," 

and  read  "  Him  who  knew  not  sin  He  made," 

etc. 

Chap.  vi.      Instead  of  "  and"  read  "  or"  in  v.  14,  "  or 

V.  14.        what  communion."    No  further  change  worthy 

of  notice  is  required  in  this  chapter. 
Chap.  vii.      Instead  of  the  words  "  but  that  our  care  for 
you  in  the  sight  of  God  might  appear  unto 
V.  12.        you"  in  V.  12,  read  "but  that  your  zeal  for  us 
might  be  made  manifest  unto  you  in  the  sight 
of  God;"   for   the  words  "Therefore  we  are 
comforted  in  your  comfort :  yea,  and  exceed- 
ingly the  more  joyed  we  for  the  joy  of  Titus," 
V.  13.        in  V.  13,  read  "  For  this  cause  we  are  comforted, 
but  in  our  comfort  we  joyed  the  more  exceed- 
ingly for  the  joy  of  Titus." 
Chap.  viii.     Instead  of  the  words  "  praying  us  with  much 
V.  4.  entreaty  that  we  would  receive  the  gift,  and 

take  upon  us  the  fellowship  of  the  ministering 
to  the  saints"   in  v.  4,  read  "  Praying  of  us 
with  much  entreaty  the  grace  and  the  partici- 
pation in  the  ministering  to  the  saints  ; "  in  v. 
V.  12.        12  omit  the  words  "a  man,"  and  read  "that 
v.  19.        which  it  hath  ;"  in  v.  19,  instead  of  the  words 
"  which  is  administered  by  us  to  the  glory  of 
the  same  Lord,  and  declaration  of  your  ready 
mind,"  read  "  which  is  administered  by  us  to 
the  glory  of  the  Lord,  and  to  further  our  zeal." 
Chap.  ix.      Omit  the  words  ''  confident  boasting  "  in  v.  4, 
V.  4.        and  read  "  in  this  confidence ;"  instead  of  "  both 


Text  of  the  New  Testament  in  its  successive  Boohs.  229 

V.  10.        minister  and  multiply"  in  v.  10,  read  "shall 

minister  and  multiply." 
Chap.  X.       Omit  the  word  "  Christ's"  at  the  end  of  v.  7, 
V.  7.  and  read  "  even  so  are  we."   No  further  change 

is  required  in  this  chapter. 
Chap.  xi.      Insert  "  the  holiness"  in  v.  3,  and  read  "  from 
V.  3.  the  simplicity  and  the  holiness  that  are  towards 

Christ ; "  for  the  words  "  no  man  shall  stop  me 

of  this  boasting  in  the  regions  of  Achaia,"  in 
V.  10.        V.  10,  read  "  this  boasting  shall  not  be  shut 

against  me  in  the  regions  of  Achaia." 
Chap.  xii.      Omit  "  my"  in  v.  9,  and  read  "  My  grace  is 
V.  9.  sufficient  for  thee,  for  strength  is  made  perfect 

V.  11.        in  weakness;"  omit  "in  glorying"  in  v.  11, 

and  read  "  I  am  become  a  fool ; "  for  the  words 

"Again,  think  ye  that  we  excuse  ourselves 
V.  19.        unto  you?"  in  v.  19,  read  "Of  a  long  time 

have  ye  been  thinking  that  we  excuse  ourselves 

unto  you." 
Chap.  xiii.     Instead   of    the   words   "  though   He   was 
V.  4.  crucified  through  weakness"  in  v.  4,  read  "for 

indeed  He  was  crucified  through  weakness ; " 
V.  7.  in  V.  7,  for  the  words  "  jSTow  I  pray  to  God," 

read  "  Now  we  pray  to  God." 

The  Epistle  to  the  Galatians. 

Chap.i.        Omit  "for"  in  v.  10,   and  read  "if  I  yet 
V.  10.        pleased  men;"  instead  of  the  words  ''to  see 
V.  18.        Peter"  in  v.  18,  read  "to  become  acquainted 
with  Cephas." 


230     Effect  jproducecl  ly  Textual  Criticism  upon  the 

Chap.  ii.      Instead  of  "  But  when  Peter  was  come  in," 

V.  11.        V.  11,  read  "  But  when  Cephas  was  come;  "  for 

the  words  "  I  said  unto  Peter  before  tliem  all, 

If  thou,  being  a  Jew,  livest  after  tlie  manner 

of  Gentiles,  and  not  as  do  the  Jews,  why  com- 

pellest  thou  the   Gentiles  to  live  as  do  the 

V.  14.        Jews  ? "  in  v.  14,  read  "  I  said  unto  Cephas 

before  them  all,  If  thou  beino'  a  Jew,  livest 

after  the  manner  of  Gentiles,  and  not  as  do  the 

Jews,   how   is   it   that   thou   compellest    the 

Gentiles  to  live  as  do  the  Jews  ?  " 

Chap.  iii.       Omit  the  words  "  that  you  should  not  obey 

V.  1.  the  truth,"  and  "  among  you  "  in  v.  1,  and  read 

the  verse  as  follows — "  0  foolish  Galatians, 

w^ho  hath  bewitched  you,  before  w^hose  eyes 

Jesus  Christ  was  evidently  set  forth  crucified?" 

instead  of  the  words  "the  man   that  doeth 

V.  12.        them  "  in  v.   12,  read  "  he  that   hath   done 

V.  17.        them;"  omit  the  w^ords  "in  Christ"  in  v.  17, 

and  read  "  the  covenant  already  confirmed  by 

V.  29.         God : "  omit  "  and  "  in  v.  29,  and  read  "  And  if 

ye  be  Christ's,  then  are  ye  Abraham's  seed, 

heirs  according  to  the  promise." 

Chap.  iv.      Instead  of  "your  hearts"  read  " our  hearts " 

V.  6.  in  V.  6  ;  omit  the  words  "  through  Christ  "  in 

V.  7,  V.  7,  and  read  "  and  if  a  son,  also  an   heir 

through  God;"  instead  of  the  words,  "And 

my   temptation   which   was   in   my  flesh  ye 

V,  14.        despised    not"   in   v.    14,   read   "And    your 

temptation  which  was  in  my  flesh  ye  despised 


Text  of  the  New  Testament  in  its  successive  Books.  231 

V.  24  not ;  "  omit  "  the  "  in  v.  24,  and  read  "  these 
women  are  two  covenants : "  omit  the  words 

V.  26.  "  of  us  all"  in  v.  26,  and  read  "  But  Jerusalem 
which  is  above  is  free,  which  is  our  mother." 

Chap.  V.      In  .v.  1  read  "  For  liberty  Christ  hath  made 

V.  1.  us  free :  stand  fast  therefore,  and  be  not  en- 

tangled again  in  the  yoke  of  bondage ; "   for 

V.  16.  "Walk  in  the  Spirit"  in  v.  16,  read  "Walk 
by  the  Spirit ; "  omit  the  word  "  adultery"  in 

V.  19.        V.  19. 

Chap.  vi.     Instead  of  the  words  "  neither  circumcision 

-y.  15.  availeth  anything"  in  v.  15,  read  "neither 
circumcision  is  anything." 

The  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians. 

Chap.  i.  The  reading  in  v.  1  was  formerly  noticed  :  ^ 
instead  of  the  words  "  wherein  He  hath  made 

V.  6.  us   accepted   in  the   Beloved "  in  v.   6,  read 

"which  He  freely  bestov/ed  upon  us  in  the 
Beloved;"  for  "the  eyes  of  your  understand- 

V.  18.  ing"  in  v.  18,  read  "the  eyes  of  your  heart," 
and  omit  "  and  "  before  "  what  "  in  the  same 
verse. 

Chap.  ii.       Instead  of  "  Himself"  read  "  Him"  in  v.  15 : 

V.  15.        insert   "  ye  are  "  before  "  fellow-citizens  "  in 

V.  19.        V.  19. 

Chap.  iii.  Instead  of  the  words  "  How  that  by  revela- 
tion He  made  known  unto  me  the  mystery"  in 

V.  3.  V.  3,  read  "  that  by  revelation  the  mystery  was 

^  Comp.  page  168. 


232     Effect  produced  hy  Textual  Criticism  upon  the 

made  known  to  me;"  for  "preach  among  the 

V.  8.  Gentiles  "   in   v.    8,   read   "  preach   unto   the 

Gentiles;"  instead  of  "fellowship  of  the  mys- 

u  9.  tery"   in   v.    9,    read    "  dispensation   of   the 

mystery,"   and    omit   the   words    "by    Jesus 
Christ"  in  the  end  of  the  verse  ;  omit  "  of  our 

V.  14.  Lord  Jesus  Christ "  in  v.  14,  and  read  simply 
"For  this  cause  I  bow  my  knees  unto  the 
Father;"  instead  of  "Unto  Him  be  glory  in 

V.  21.  the  church  by  Christ  Jesus  "  in  v.  21,  read 
"  Unto  Him  be  the  glory  in  the  church  and  in 
Christ  Jesus." 

Chap.  iv.  Instead  of  "in  you  all"  in  v.  6,  read  sim- 
ply "in  all;"  omit  "first"  in  v.  9,  and  read 
simply  "descended  into;"  omit  "other"  in 
V.  17,  and  read  "  as  the  Gentiles  walk." 

Instead  of  "hath  loved  us"  in  v.  2,  read 
"hath  loved  you;"  insert  "being  aware"  in 
V.  5,  and  read  "For  this  know,  being  aware  ;" 
for  "Spirit"  substitute  "light"  in  v.  9,  and 
read  "For  the  fruit  of  the  light  is;"  for 
"understanding"  in  v.  17,  read  "  understand;" 
for  "fear  of  God"  in  v.  21,  read  "fear  of 
Christ;"  omit  the  Avord   "submitting"   in  v. 

V.  22.  22,  and  read  "  wives  to  their  own  husbands, 
as  unto  the  Lord  ;"  instead  of  the  words  "  and 

V.  23.  he  is  the  Saviour  of  the  body"  in  v.  23,  read 
"  Himself  the  Saviour  of  the  body;"  instead 
of  "  that  He  might  present  it  to  Himself  a 

V.  27.        glorious  church,"  in  v.  27,  read  "  that  He  might 


V. 

6. 

V. 

9. 

V. 

17. 

Chap.  V. 

V. 

2. 

V. 

5. 

V. 

9. 

V. 

17. 

V. 

21. 

Text  of  the  New  Testament  in  its  successive  Books.  233 

Himself  present  to  Himself  the  chnrcli  glori- 

V.  29.        ous  ;"  for  "  the  Lord"  in  v.  29,  read  *'  Christ ;" 

omit  the  words  "  of  His  flesh  and  of  His  bones" 

V.  30.        in  V.  30,  and  read  simply,  "  because  we  are 

members  of  His  body." 
Cha2i.  vi.      Instead  of  the  words  "  knowing  that  your 
V.  9.  Master  also  is  in  heaven/'  in  v.  9,  read  "  know- 

ing that  both  their  Master  and  yours  is  in 
heaven ;"  for  the  w^ords    "  asrainst  the  rulers 
V.  12.        of  the  darkness  of  this  world"  in  v.  12,  read 
"  against  the  rulers  of  this  darkness." 

The  Epistle  to  the  Philippians. 

Chap.  i.        Instead  of  "with  the  fruits"  in  v.  11,  read 
V.  11.         "with  the  fruit;"  insert  "of  God"  in  v.  14, 
V.  14.        and  read  "  to  speak  the  word  of  God  ;"  trans- 
w.  16, 17. pose  vv.  16,  17,  and  read  "the  one  from  love, 
knowing  that  I  am  set  for  the  defence  of  the 
Gospel ;   the  other  preach  Christ,  from   con- 
tentiousness, not  sincerely,   thinking  to  raise 
up  affliction  to  my  bonds ;"  instead  of  "  but 
V.  28.        to  you  of  salvation"  in  v.   28,  read  "  but  of 

your  salvation." 
Chap),  ii.       Insert  "  also"  in  v.  4,   and  read   "  on  the 
V.  4.  things  of  others  also;"  for  "let  this  mind  be 

V.  5.  in  you"  in  v.  5,   read  "  all  of  you  have  this 

mind  in  you." 
Chap.  iii.      Instead  of  the  words  "  which  worship  God 
V.  3.  in  the  spirit"  in  v.   3,  read  "  which  w^orship 

in  (or  "by")  the  Spirit  of  God;"  instead  of 


234     Effect  produced  hy  Textual  Criticism  upon  the 

V.  11.  the  words  "  of  the  dead  "  in  v.  11,  read  ''from 
the  dead;"  instead  of  the  words,  ''neverthe- 
less, whereto  we  have  already  attained,  let  us 
walk  by  the  same  rule,  let  us  mind  the  same 

V.  16.  thing  "  in  v.  16,  read  "  nevertheless,  whereto 
we  have  attained,  let  us  walk  by  the  same 
[course]." 

Chap.  iv.      Instead  of  the  words  "  through  Christ  which 

V.  13.  strengtheneth  me"  in  v.  13,  read  "through 
Him  which  strengtheneth  me ; "  for  "  be  with 

V.  23.        you  all"  in  v.  23,  read  "  be  with  your  spirit." 

The  Epistle  to  the  Colossians. 

Chap.  i.         Omit  "  and,"  and  read  as  follows  in  v.  6, 
V.  6.  "which  is  present  with  you,  as  in  all  the  world; 

it  is  bringing  forth  fruit  and  increasing  even 
V.  7.  as  in  you  since,"  etc. ;  omit  "  also"  in  v.   7, 

and  read  "  as  ye  learned ;"  and  in  the  same 
verse,  instead  of  "  who  is  for  you,"  read  "  who 
is  for  us ; "  omit  "  through  His  blood "  in  v. 
V.  14.        14,  and  read  "  In  whom  we  have  the  redemp- 
tion,   the   remission  of  sins ; "   for    "  in   my 
V.  24.        sufferings  "  in  v.  24,  read  "  in  sufferings  ; "  for 
V.  28.        "  perfect   in   Christ   Jesns "    in   v.    28,   read 

"  perfect  in  Christ." 
Chap.  ii.       Omit  "of  the  sins"  in  v.  11,   and  read  "in 
u  11.        the  putting  off  of  the  body  of  the  flesh;"  in- 
stead of   "  having  forgiven  you  all  trespasses  " 
V.  13.        in  V.  13,  read  "having  forgiven  us  all  our  tres- 
passes ;"  instead  of  the  words  "  intruding  into 


Text  of  the  Neiv  Testament  in  its  successive  Books.  235 

V.  18.        those  things  which  he  hath  not  seen"  in  v.  18, 

read  "  dwelling  on  (insisting  on)  the  things 

which  he  hath  seen." 
Chap.  iii.      Instead  of  "  let  the  peace  of  God  rule  in 
V.  12.        your  hearts"  in  v.  1%  read  "  let  the  peace  of 

Christ  rule  in  your  hearts ; "  omit  "  and  "  in 
V.  17.  V.  17,  and  read  "  giving  thanks  to  God  the 
V.  18.        Father  by  him  ;  "  omit  "own"  in  v.  18,  and 

read  "  submit  yourselves  to  your  husbands  ; " 

instead  of  "  this  is  well  pleasing  to  the  Lord" 
V.  20.  in  V.  20,  read  "this  is  well  pleasing,  in  the 
V.  22.        Lord  ; "  instead  of  "  fearing   God"  in  v.   22, 

read  "fearing  the  Lord;"  omit  "and"  in  v. 
v.  23.  23,  and  read  "whatsoever ye  do;"  omit  "for" 
V.  24.        in  V.  24,  and  read  "ye  serve  (or  "serve  ye") 

the  Lord  Christ ;"   instead  of  "  But  he  that 
V.  25.        doeth  "  in  v.  25,  read  "  For  he  that  doeth." 
Chap.  iv.      Instead  of  the  words   "  that  ye  may  stand 

perfect  and  complete  in  all  the  will  of  God"  in 
V.  12.        V.  12,   read   "that  ye  may  stand  perfect  and 

fully  assured  in  all  the  will  of  God;"  for  "that 
V.  13.        he  hath  a  great  zeal  for  you  "  in  v.  13,   "  that 

he  hath  much  labour  for  you." 

The  First  Epistle  to  the  Thessalonians. 

Chap.  i.        Omit  the  words   "  of  you"   in  v.  2,  and  read 
V.  2.  simply    "  making    mention   in   our   prayers." 

No    other    change    calls    for    notice   in   this 

chapter. 
Chap.  ii.       Insert  "And"  in  v.  13,  so  as  to  read  "And 


236     Effect  produced  hy  Textual  Criticism  upon  the 

V.  13.  for  this  cause;"  omit  "Christ"  in  v.  19,  and 
V.  19.        read  "our  Lord  Jesus." 

Chap.  iii.  Omit  again  "Christ"  in  v.  11,  and  read 
V.  11.  simply  "our  Lord  Jesus ;"  in  like  manner,  omit 
V.  13.        "Christ"  in  v.  13,  and  read  simply  "the  coming 

of  our  Lord  Jesus." 
Chap.  iv.      Insert  "as  ye  also  are  walking"  in  v.  1,  and 
V.  1.  read  "to  please  God,  as  ye  also  are  walking,  ye 

would  abound  yet  more ;"  for  "  But  I  would 
V.  13.        not"  in  v.  13,  read  "But  we  would  not." 
Chap.  V.       Insert  "  For"  in  v.  5,  and  read  "  For  ye  are 
V.  5.  all."      ISTothing   else  requires   notice   in   this 

chapter. 

The  Second  Epistle  to  the  Thessalonians. 

Chap.  i.  Instead  of  the  words  "  in  all  them  that  be- 
V.  10.  lieve"  in  v.  10,  read  "in  all  them  that  believed;" 
V.  12.        omit  "Christ"  in  v.  12,  and  read  simply  "that 

the  name  of  our  Lord  Jesus  may  be." 
Chap.  ii.       For  "  the  day  of  Christ  "  in  v.  2,  read  "  the 
V.  2.  day  of  the  Lord ;"  omit  the  words  "as  God"  in 

V.  4.  V.  4,  and  read,  "so  that  he  sitteth;"  instead  of 

V.  8.  "the  Lord"  in  v.  8,  read  "the  Lord  Jesus;" 

V.  11,        for  "God  shall  send  them"  in  v.  11,  read  "God 

sendeth  them." 
Chap.  iii.      For  "by  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ"  in  v.  12, 
V.  J2.        read  "in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  ;"  omit  "and" 
V.  14.        in  V.  14,  and  read  "  note  that  man,  have  no 

company  with  him." 


Text  of  the  New  Testament  in  its  successive  Boohs.  237 

The  First  Epistle  to  Timothy. 

Chap.  i.         For  "God  our  Father"  in  v.  2,  read  "  God 
V.  2.  tlie  Father;"  no  other  change  calls  for  remark 

except  those  formerly  mentioned. 
Chap.  ii.       Nothing    requires   to    be    noticed    in    this 

chapter. 
Chap.  iii.      Omit  the  words,  "not  greedy  of  filthy  lucre" 
V.  3.  in  V.  3,  and  read  "no  striker,  but  patient;"  no 

other  change  requires  notice  except  the  very 

important  one  in  v.  16,  formerly  considered.^ 
Chap.iY.      Instead   of   "Jesus    Christ"   in  v.   6,   read 
V.  6.  "Christ  Jesus  ;  "  omit  the  words  "in  spirit"  in 

V.  12.        V.  12,  and  read  "in  charity,  in  faith,"  etc. 
Chap>.  V.       Omit  the  words  "  good  and  "  in  v. '^5,'  and 
V.  5.  read  simply  "  this  is  acceptable  before  God ; " 

V.  16.        probably  omit  "  man  or  "  in  v.  16,  and  read 

"  If  any  woman  that  believeth  have  widows ; " 
V.  21.        instead   of    "Jesus    Christ"    in  v.   21,  read 

"  Christ  Jesus." 
Chap.  vi.      Omit  the  words  "  from  such  withdraw  thy- 
V.  5.  self "  in  v.  5,  and  end  the  verse  with  "gain," 

("supposing  that  godliness  is  a  means  of  gain;") 
V.  12.        omit  "also"  in  v.  12,  and  read  simply  "where- 

unto  thou  wast  called;"  omit  the  words  "the 
V.  17.  living"  in  v.  17,  and  read  simjjly  "but  in  God;" 
V.  19.        instead  of  "  lay  hold  of  -eternal  life  "  in  v.  19, 

read  "lay  hold  of  the  true  life." 

1  Comp.  p.  141. 


238     Effect  ^produced  hy  Textual  Criticism  upon  the 


The  Second  Epistle  to  Timothy. 

Chap.i.         Instead  of  "Jesus   Christ"    in  v.   1,  read 

V.  1.  "  Christ  Jesus,"  and  make  the  same  change  in 

V.  10.        V.  10. 

Chap.  ii.  Instead  of  the  words  "  Thou  therefore  en- 
dure  hardness,    as    a   good   soldier   of  Jesus 

V.  3.  Christ "  in  v.  3,  read  "  Endure  afflictions  with 

me  as  a  good  soldier  of  Christ  Jesus ;"  for  "the 

V.  7.  Lord  give  thee  understanding"  in  v.  7,  read 

"the  Lord  shall  give  thee  understanding;"  for 

V.  11.        "  if  we  deny  him  "  in  v.  If,  read  "if  we  shall 

V.  13.  deny  him;"  insert  "for"  in  v.  13,  and  read 
"for   he   cannot   deny  himself;"    instead   of 

V.  19.        "the   name   of  Christ"    in  v.  19,  read  "the 

v.  21.  name  of  the  Lord;"  omit  "and"  in  v.  21,  and 
read  "  sanctified,  meet  for  the  master's  use." 

Chap.  iii.  No  change  requires  to  be  noted  in  this 
chapter. 

Chap.  iv.       Omit  "therefore"  in  v.  1,  and  read  as  fol- 

V.  1.  lows,  "  I  charge  thee  before  God  and  Christ 

Jesus  (instead  of  '  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ '), 
who  shall  judge  the  quick  and  the  dead,  and 
by  His  appearing  and  His  kingdom  "  (instead 
of  "  at  His  appearing  ").     For  "  the  Lord  re- 

V.  14.  ward  him,"  in  v.  14,  read  "  the  Lord  shall 
reward  him."     Omit  "  and  "  at  the  beginning 

V.  18.        of  v.  18,  and  read  "  the  Lord." 


Text  of  the  New  Testament  in  its  successive  Boohs.  239 

The  Epistle  to  Titus. 

Chap.  i.        Instead  of  "  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,"  in  v.  4, 
V.  4.  read  "  Christ  Jesus."     Nothing  more  requires 

to  be  noted  in  this  chapter. 
Cho2^.  ii.       Omit  "  sincerity  "  in  v.  7,  and  end  the  verse 
vv.  7,  8.    with  "  gravity ;"  for  "  to  say  of  you/'  in  v.  8, 

read  "  to  say  of  us  ;"  instead  of  "  our  Saviour 
V.  13.        Jesus   Christ,"  in  v.   13,  read  "our  Saviour 

Christ  Jesus." 
Chap.  iii.      No  change  required  in  this  chapter. 

The  Epistle  to  Philemon. 

Instead  of  the  words  "  and  to  our  beloved 

V.  2.  Apphia,"  in  v.  2,  read  "  and  to  Apphia  our  sis- 

V.  7.  ter."     Eor  the  words  "  Eor  we  have  "  in  v.  7, 

read  ''  Eor  I  had."     Instead  of  the  second  "  in 

V.  20.         the  Lord,"  in  v.  20,  read  "  in  Christ." 

The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews. 

Chap.  i.  Instead  of  the  words  "  a  sceptre  of  right- 
eousness is  the  sceptre  of  Thy  kingdom,"  in  v. 

vv.  8,  3.  8,  read  "  the  sceptre,"  etc.  V.  3  of  this  chapter 
was  formerly  noticed,  and  nothing  else  demands 
our  attention.^ 

Chajy.  ii.       Omit  (probably)  the  words  "  and  didst  set 

V.  7.  Him  over  the  works  of  Thy  hands,"  in  v.  7. 

V.  9.  The  remarkable  various  reading  in  v.  9  was 

formerly  considered.^  Eor  the  words  "par- 
1  Comp.  p.  14.  2  Comp.  p.  169. 


240     Effect  produced  hy  Textual  Criticism  upon  the 

/^ 
V.  15.        takers  of  flesh  and  blood,"  in  v.  15/ read  "par- 
takers of  blood  and  flesli." 
Chap.  iii.      Omit  the  word  "  Christ "  in  v.  1,  and  read 
V.  1.  simply  "  the  Apostle  and  High  Priest  of  our 

profession,  Jesus."    Omit  (perhaps)  "  firm  unto 
V.  6.  the  end,"  in  v.  6,  and  close  the  verse  with 

"  hope."     Instead  of  the  words,  "  your  fathers 
V.  9.  tempted  me,  proved  me,"  in  v.  9,  read  "  your 

fathers  tempted  by  proving  (me)." 
Chap.  iv.      In  this  chapter  a  very  remarkable  various 
reading  occurs.     Instead  of  the  common  text, 
V.  2.  "  but  the  word  preached  did  not  profit  them, 

not  being  mixed  with  faith  in  them  that  heard 
it,"  in  V.  2,  we  are  compelled  by  greatly  pre- 
ponderating evidence  to  read,  "  but  the  word 
of  hearing  did  not  profit  them,  since  they  were 
not  mingled  by  faith  with  those  that  heard  it." 
Chap.  V.  Instead  of  the  words  "  but  he  that  is  called 
V.  4.  of  God,"  in  v.  4,  read  "but  being  called  of 

God."     Nothing  more  calls  for  notice  in  this 
chapter. 
Chap.  vi.       Omit  the  words  "  and  laboar  of,"  in  v.  10, 
V.  10.        and  read  "  your  work,  and  the  love."    No  other 

change  is  required. 
Chap.  vii.  Instead  of  the  words  "concerning  priest- 
V.  14.  hood,"  in  v.  14,  read  "  concerning  priests." 
V.  21.  Omit  (probably)  the  words  "  after  the  order  of 
Melchizedek,"  in  v.  21,  and  end  the  verse  with 
V.  26.  "  for  ever."  Insert  "  also  "  in  v.  26,  and  read 
"  For  such  an  high  priest  also  became  us." 


Text  of  the  New  Testament  in  its  successive  Boohs.  241 

Chap.  viii.     Omit  "and"  in  v.  2,  and  read  "the  Lord 
V.  2.  pitched,  not  man."    Instead  of  the  words  "  For 

V.  4.  if  he  were  on  earth,"  in  v.  4,  read,  "  If,  there- 

fore, he  were  on  earth ;"  in  the  same  verse  omit 
the  word  "  priests,"  and  read  "  there  are  those 
that   offer."      Instead   of  the   words   "  teach 
V.  11.        every  man  his  neighbour,"  in  v.  11,  read  "teach 
every  man  his  feUow-citizen."    Omit  the  words 
V.  12.        "  and  their  iniquities,"  in  v.  12,  and  read  sim- 
ply "  their  sins  will  I  remember  no  more." 
Chaj).  ix.      Insert  "  also  "  in  v.  28,  and  read  "  so  also 
V.  28.        the  Christ."     Nothing  else  calls  for  notice. 
Cha'p.  X.       Instead  of  "  sacrifice  and  offering  "  in  v.  8, 
^;.  8.  read  "sacrifices  and  offerings."    Omit  the  words 

-y.  9.  "0  God,"  in  v.  9,  and  read  simply  "  to  do  Thy 

V.  15.         wiU."     Omit  "  before  "  in  v.  15,  and  read  sim- 
ply "  after  lie  had  said."    For  the  words,  "  and 
V.  16.        in  their  minds,"  in  v.  16,  read  "  and  in  their 
mind."     Instead  of  "  ye  had  compassion  of  me 
V.  34.        in  my  bonds,"  in  v.  34,  read  "  ye  had  compas- 
sion of  those  in  bonds ;"  in  the  same  verse  omit 
the  words  "in  heaven,"  and  read,  "knowing  that 
ye  yourselves  have  a  better  and  an  enduring 
substance."     Instead  of  the  w^ords  "  Now  the 
V.  38.        just  shall  live  by  faith,"  in  v.  38,  read  "  Now 

my  just  one  shall  live  by  faith." 

Cliap.  xi.       Instead  of  the  words  "  so  that  things  which 

V.  3.  are  seen  w^re  not  made"  in  v.  3,  read  "  so  that 

that  which  is  seenw^as  not  made;"  instead  of 

"  For  he  looked  for  a  city  which  hath  founda- 

Q 


242    Effect  produced  hy  TextvM  Criticism  upon  the 

V.  10.        tions"  in  v.  10,  read  "For  he  looked  for  the 

city  which  hath  the  foundations ;  "  omit  the 

V.  11.        words  "  and  was  delivered  of  a  child"  in  v.  11, 

and  read  simply  "  received  strength  to  conceive 

seed,  even  when,"  etc. ;  omit  the  words  "  and 

V.  13.        were  persuaded  of  them"  in  v.   13,  and  read 

simply    "  having   seen"  them   from   afar,    and 

greeted  them;"  for  "treasures  in  Egypt"  in 

V.  26.        V.  26,  read  "  treasures  of  Egypt." 

Chap.  xii.     Instead  of  the  words  "  If  ye  endure  chasten- 

V.  7.       •    ing,"   in  v.  7,  read   "  It  is  for  chastisement 

that  ye  are  enduring ; "  omit  the  words  "  or 

V.  20.        thrust  through  with  a  dart"  in  v.  20,  and  end 

the  verse  with  "  stoned." 
Chap.  xiii.     Instead  of  the  words  "  Be  not  carried  ahout" 
V.  9.  in  V.   9,  read  "  Be  not  carried  away ; "  omit 

V.  11.        the  words  "  for  sin"  in  v.  11,  and  read  simply 
"  hy  the  high  priest." 

The  Epistle  of  James. 

Chap.  i.  Instead  of  the  words  "  which  the  Lord  hath 
V.  12.  promised"  in  v.  12,  read  "  which  He  pro- 
mised." A  very  remarkable  reading  occurs 
V.  19.  in  this  chapter  at  v.  19.  Instead  of  the 
"  wherefore "  of  the  common  text,  evidence 
compels  us  to  adopt  another  word  which  in 
the  Greek  differs  only  Ly  a  single  letter,  hut 
which  requires  in  English  some  such  version 
as  the  following,  "Know,  my  beloved  brethren, 
and   let   every   one,"    etc. ;    omit   the   words 


Text  of  the  New  Testament  in  its  successive  Boohs.  243 

V.  26.        " among  yoa"  in  v.  26,  and  read  simply  "If 

any  one  thinks." 

Chap.  ii.        Omit  the  words  "  unto  him"  in  v.  3,  and 

V.  3.  read  simply  "  and  say  ;  "  instead  of  "  the  poor 

V.  5.  of  this  world"  in  v.  5,  read  "  the  poor  of  the 

V.  Id.        world;"    omit    "and"    in   v.    13,    and   read 

"  mercy  rejoiceth    against   judgment ;  "    omit 

V.  18.        the  word  "thy"  in  v.  18,  before  ''works"  and 

"my"  before  "faith,"  and  read  simply  "shew 

me  thy  faith  without  works  ;  and  I  will  show 

thee   faith   by   my   works ;"    omit   the   word 

V.  24.        "then"    in  v.  24,  and  read  simply    "ye  see 

that." 
Chap.  iii.      Instead  of  the  words  "  Behold  how  great  a 
V.  5.  matter  a  little  fire  kindle th  !"  in  v.  5,  read 

"  Behold  how  great  a  forest  a  little  fire  kin- 
V.  6.  dleth  !  "  omit  the  word  "  so  "  in  v.  6,  and  read 

"  and  the  tongue  is  a  fire,  that  world  of  ini- 
quity !  The  tongue  is  the  one  among  our 
members  which  defileth  the  whole  body," 
etc. ;  instead  of  the  words  "  it  is  an  unruly 
V.  8.  evil"  in  v.  8,  read  "it  is  a  restless  evil;  "  for 

the   words    "  so  can  no  fountain  both  yield 
V.  12.        salt  water  and  fresh,"  in  v.  12,  read  "  neither 
can  salt  water  bring  forth  fresh ; "  insert  the 
V.  16.        word  "also"  in  v.  16,  and  read  "there  also  is 
V.  17.         confusion;"    omit  the  word  "and"  in  v.  17, 
and  read  simply  "  without  partiality,  without 
hypocrisy." 
Chap.  iv.       Omit  the  word    "  yet "  in  v.   2,  and  read 


V. 

"l 

V. 

4. 

V. 

7. 

V. 

11 

244     Effect  produced  ly  Textual  Criticism  iipon  the 

simply,    "  ye   have   not ; "    omit    the    words 
"  adulterers  and "   in  v.   4,  and  read  simply 
"  ye  adulteresses ; "  insert  the  word  "  but "  in 
V.  7,  and  read  "  submit  yourselves  therefore  to 
God,  but  resist;"  instead  of  "and"  in  v.  11 
insert    "  or,"  and  read    "  or  judgeth  his  bro- 
ther ; "  instead  of  "  There  is  one  lawgiver,  who 
is  able  to  save  and  to  destroy  ;  who  art  thou 
V.  12.        that  judgest  another  ?"  in  v.  12,  read  "There 
is  one  lawgiver  and  judge,  he  who  is  able  to 
save  and  to  destroy ;  but  thou,  who  art  thou 
that  judgest  thy  neighbour  ? " 
Chap.  V.       Omit  "  as  "  in  v.   5,  and  read  simply  "  ye 
V.  5.  nourished  your  hearts  in  a  day  of  slaughter ;  " 

v.  9.  instead  of  "  lest  ye  be  condemned  "  in  v.   9, 

read  "  lest  ye  be  judged  ; "  instead  of  "  which 
V.  IL  endure"  in  v.  11  read  "which  have  endured;" 
V.  .1 2.  for  "  lest  ye  fall  into  condemnation  "  in  v.  12, 
read  "lest  ye  fall  into  judgment;"  insert  "there- 
V.  16.  fore"  in  v,  16,  and  read  "confess  therefore;" 
V.  19.        insert  "  my  "  in  v.  19,  and  read  "my  brethren." 

The  Fikst  Epistle  of  Peter. 

Chap.  i.  Instead  of  "  honour  and  glory,"  in  ver.  7, 
V.  7.  read  "  glory  and  honour."      Instead  of  "  but 

V.  12.  unto  us,"  in  v.  12,  read  "but  unto  you."  In- 
V.  16.        stead  of  "Be  ye  holy,"  in  v.   16,  read  "Ye 

shall  be  holy,"  Instead  of  the  words  "  who  by 
V.  21.        Him  do  believe  in  God,"  in  v.  21,  read  "  who 

through  Him   are   believers   in    (or   faithful 


Text  of  the  New  Testament  in  its  successive  Boohs.  245 

towards)  God."     Omit  the  word  "  pure,"  in  v. 

V.  22.  22,  and  read  "  love  one  another  from  the  heart 
fervently."     Omit   the  words   "  for  ever "   in 

V.  23.  V.  23,  and  read  simply  "  which  liveth  and 
abideth."      Instead  of  all  the  glory  of  man," 

V.  24.        in  V.  24,  read  "  all  the  glory  thereof" 

Chap.  ii.       Insert  the  words  "  unto  salvation  "  in  v.  2, 

V.  2.  and  read  "  that  ye  may  grow  thereby  unto  sal- 

vation."    Instead  of  the  words   "  Christ  also 
suffered  for  us,  leaving  us  an  example,  that  ye 

V.  21.  should  follow  His  steps,"  in  v.  21 ,  read  "  Christ 
also  suffered  for  you,  leaving  you  an  examj^le, 
that  ye  should  follow  His  steps."     Instead  of 

V.  25.  "  Tor  ye  were  as  sheep  going  astray,"  in  v.  25, 
read  "  For  ye  were  going  astray  as  sheep." 

Instead  of  tlie  words  "  be  courteous,"  in  v.  8, 
read  "  be  humble."  Omit  "  knowing  "  in  v.  9, 
and  read  "  contrariwise  blessing,  because  ye 
are."  Instead  of  "  if  ye  be  followers  of,"  in 
V.  13,  read  "  if  ye  be  zealous  of."  As  formerly 
noticed,  instead  of  ''  the  Lord  God,"  in  v.  15, 
read  "the  Lord  Christ;"^  in  the  same  verse  omit 
"  and "  before  "  be  readj^,"  and  read  simply 
"  being  ready;"  in  the  same  verse  insert  "  but " 
after  "  in  you,"  and  read  "  but  with  meekness 

V.  20.  and  fear."  Omit  "  once "  in  v.  20,  and  read 
simply  "  when  the  longsuffering  of  God  was 
waitiD2j." 

Chap.  iv.      Omit  the  words  "  of  our  life,"  in  v.  3,  and 

V.  3.  read  simply  "  For  the  time  past."     Omit  the 

^  Comp.  page  170. 


Chap. 

iii. 

vv.  8, 

9. 

V.  13. 

V.  15. 

246    Effect  produced  hy  Textual  Criticism  upon  the 

words  '^  on  their  part  he  is  evil  spoken  of,  "but 

V.  14.        on  your  part  he  is  glorified"  in  v.  14,  and  end 

the  verse  with  the  words  "  resteth  upon  you." 

V.  16.        For  the  words  "on  this  behalf"  in  v.  16,  read 

V.  19.        "in  this  name."     Omit    "as"   in  v.  19,  and 

read  simply  "  unto  a  faithful  Creator." 

Chap.  V.        Insert  "  therefore  "  in  v.  1,  and  read  "  The 

■V.  1.  elders    therefore."     Omit  the  words    "  taking 

V.  2.  the  oversight  thereof"  in  v.  2,  and  read  simply 

"  Feed  the  flock  of  God  which  is  among  you, 

not  by  constraint,"  etc.     Omit  the  words  "  be 

V.  5.  subject"   in  v.    5,    and   read    "Likewise,   ye 

younger,  submit  yourselves  unto  the  elder,  yea, 

V.  8.  all  one  to  another."     Omit  "because"  in  v.  8, 

and  read  simply  "  Be  sober,  be  vigilant :  your 

V.  10.        adversary."     Instead  of  "us"  in  v.  10,  insert 

"  you,"  and  read  the  verse  as  follows — "  But 

the  God  of  all  grace,  who  called  you  into  His 

eternal  glory  in  Clirist  Jesus,  after  ye  have 

suffered  a  little  while,  shall  himself  make  you 

perfect,  stablish,  strengthen  (settle)  you." 

The  Second  Epistle  of  Peter. 

Chap.  i.        Instead  of  the  words   "  hath  called  us  to 
V.  3.  glory  and  virtue  "  in  v.  3,  read  "  called  us  by 

His    own    glory    and    virtue."      Instead    of 
V.  12.        "  Wherefore  I  will  not  be  negligent  "  in  v.  12, 

read  "  Wherefore  I  will  take  care  to." 
Chap.  ii.       Instead  of  the  words  "  And  many  shall  fol- 
V.  2.  low   their  pernicious   ways "    in  v.    2,   read 


Text  of  the  Nciu  Testament  in  its  successive  Boohs.  247 

"  And  many  shall  follow  their  licentioas  ways." 

V.  12.        Instead  of  "  shall  utterly  perish  "  in  v.  12,  read 

"  shall  even  perish."     Instead  of  ''  covetous 

V.  14        practices  "  in  v.  14,  read  "  covetous  practice." 

Instead  of  the  words  "  clouds  that  are  carried 

V.  17.        with  a  tempest  '^  in  v.  17,  read  "  mists  driven 

by  a  tempest :"  probably  omit  "  for  ever  "  in 

the  same  verse,  and  end  with  "  is  reserved." 

V.  21.        Insert  "  back  "  in  v.  21,  and  read  "  to  turn 

V.  22.        back  from."     Omit  the  word  "  But  "  in  v.  22, 

and  read  simply,  "  It  is  happened." 
Chap.  iii.      Instead  of  the  words  "  and  of  the  command- 
ment  of  us   the   apostles   of  the   Lord   and 
V.  2.  Saviour"  in  v.  2,  read  "  and  of  the  command- 

ment  of    the    Lord    and     Saviour    by   your 
apostles."     Insert  the  words  "in  scoffing"  in 
V.  3.  V.  3,  and  read  "scoffers  in   [their]  scoffing." 

V.  9.  Instead  of  "us-ward"  in  v.  9,  read  "you- ward." 

V.  10.         Omit  the  words  "in  the  night"  in  v.  10,  and 
read  simply  "will  come  as  a  thief."     Instead 
V.  16.        of  "  in  which  are"  in  v.  16,  insert  for  the  sake 
of  clearness  "in  which  Epistles,"  as  the  read- 
ing of  the  most  ancient  authorities  requires. 

The  First  Epistle  of  John. 

Chap.  i.         Insert  "  also  "  in  v.  3,  and  read  "  that  which 
V.  3.  we  have  seen  and  heard  declare  we  unto  you 

V.  4.  also ; "    omit   "  unto  you "   in   v.  4,  and  read 

simply  "  these  things  write  we,  that,"  etc. 
Chap.  ii.       Instead  of  "  brethren"   in  v.  7  read   ''  be- 


V. 

13. 

V. 

23. 

V. 

24. 

V. 

27. 

Chap.  iii. 

vv.  1,  2. 

V. 

13. 

248    Effect  i^roduced  ly  Textual  Criticism  upon  tlie 

V.  7.  loved ; "  in  the  same  verse  omit  the  second 

"  from  the  beginning/'  and  end  with  "  heard ;" 
instead  of  "  I  write  nnto  you,  little  children" 
in  V.  13,  read  "  I  have  written  unto  you,  chil- 
dren ; "  V.  23  was  previously  noticed  -^  omit 
"  therefore "  in  v.  24,  and  read  simply  "  let 
that  abide ;  "  instead  of  the  words,  "  ye  shall 
abide  in  him"  in  v.  27,  read  "  abide  in  him." 

V.  1  was  formerly  noticed  f  omit  "  but  "  in 
V.  2,  and  read  "  what  we  shall  be,  we  know 
that,"  etc. ;  omit  "  my "  in  v.  13,  and  read 
"  marvel  not,  brethren  ;  "  omit  "  his  brother  " 

v.  14.        in  V.  14,  and  read  simply  "  He  that  loveth  not 
abideth  in  death  ; "  instead  of  "  we  know  "  in 

V.  19.        V.  19,  read  "  we  shall  know." 

Chap.  iv.      No  change  calling  for  notice  requires  to  be 
-made  in  this  chapter,  except  the  omission  of 

V.  19.        "him"  in  V.  19. 

Chap.  V.       The  important  text  vv.  7,  8  was  formerly  dis- 

vv.  7,  8.     cussed  :  ^  instead  of  the  words  "  for  this  is  the 
witness  of  God  which  he  hath  testified  of  his 

V.  9.  Son"  in  v.  9  read  "  for  this  is  the  witness  of 

God,  that  he  hath  borne  witness  respecting  his 

V.  13.        Son ;  "  v.  13  was  formerly  considered.* 

The  Second  Epistle  of  John. 

Instead  of  "  are  entered  into  the  world"  in 

V.  7.  V.  7,  read  "  are  gone  out  into  the  world ;  "  for 

the   words  "  that   we   lose   not   those  things 

^  Comp.  p.  170.      2  Comp.  p.  171.     ^  Comp.  p.  134.      ^  Comp.  p.  171. 


Text  of  the  Neiv  Testament  in  its  successive  Books.  249 

which  we  have  wrought,  but  that  we  receive  a 
V.  8.  full  reward"  in  v.  8,  read  "  that  ye  lose  not 

the  things  which  ye  have  wrought,  but  that 
ye  receive  a  full  reward ;  "  instead  of  "  whoso- 
V.  9.  ever  transgresseth  "  in  v.  9,  read  "  whosoever 

goeth  forward ; "  in  the  same  verse  omit  the 
words  '*  of  Christ/'  and  read  simply  "  in  the 
doctrine,  he  hath  both,"  etc. 

The  Third  Epistle  of  John. 

Instead  of  the  words  "  whatsoever  thou 
V.  5.  doest  to  the  brethren,  and  to  strangers"  in  v.  5, 

read  "  whatsoever  thou  doest  to  the  brethren, 

and  that  though  they  are  strangers  ;  "  instead 
V,  7.  of  ''for  his  name's  sake"  in  v.   7,  read  "for 

the  Name's  sake ; "  insert  the  Avord  "  some- 
V.  9.  thing"  in  v.  9,  and  read  "  I  wrote  something 

to  the  church  ;"  omit  the  second  "  but"  in  v. 
V.  11.  11,  and  read  simply  "  is  of  God,  he  that,"  etc. ; 
V.  12.  instead  of  "  ye  know  "  in  v.  12,  read  "  thou 
■V.  13.        knowest ;  "  insert  "  unto  thee  "  in  v.  13,  and 

read  "  to  write  unto  thee." 

t 

The  Epistle  of  Jude. 

V.  1.  Instead  of  "  sanctified  by  God  the  Father," 

read  "  beloved  by  God  the  Father ;  "  for  "  of 

V.  3.  the  common  salvation"  in  v.  3,  read  "  of  our 

common  salvation ; "    for   "  denying  the  only 

V,  4.  Lord  God"  in  v.  4,  read  "  denying  the  only 

Master : "    instead   of   "  how  that  the   Lord, 


250    Effect  produced  hy  Textual  Criticism  upon  the 

V.  5.  having  saved"  in  v.  5,  read  "  how  that  Jesus, 

having  saved;"  and  probably  in  the  same 
verse   for    "  knew   this  "   read   "  knew   all ;  " 

V.  12.  for  "carried  about"  in  v.  12,  read  "carried 
away ; "    omit  the  words    "  among  them "  in 

'y.  15.  V.  15,  and  read  simply  "  all  that  are  ungodly 
of  all  their  ungodly  deeds ;"   omit  the  word 

V.  25.  "  wise"  in  v.  25,  and  insert  the  words 
"through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord,"  so  as  to 
read  the  verse  thus,  "  to  the  only  God  our 
Saviour,  through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord,  be 
glory,  majesty,  dominion,  and  power;"  and 
instead  of  the  words  "  both  now  and  ever," 
read  "  before  all  time,  and  now,  and  for  ever. 
Amen." 

The  Book  of  Eevelation. 

Chap.  i.        Instead  of  "  all  things  that  he  saw  "  in  v.  2, 

V.  2.  read    "  whatsoever  things  he  saw  ; "    instead 

vv.  5,  6.    of  the  words  in  vv.  5,  6,  "  Unto  him  that  loved 

us,  and  washed  us  from  our  sins  in  his  own 

blood,  and  hath  made  us  kings  and  priests 

unto  God  and  his  Father  ;  to  him  be  glory  and 

dominion   for   ever   and  ever.     Amen,"   read 

"  Unto  him  that   loveth  us,  and   washed   us 

from  our  sins  in   his    own   blood,    and  hath 

made  us  a  kingdom,  priests  unto  God  and  his 

Father,  to  him  be  the  glory  and  the  dominion 

for  ever  and  ever.     Amen;"   omit  the  words 

V.  8.  "  the  beginning  and  the  ending  "  in  v.  8,  and 


Text  of  the  New  Testament  in  its  successive  Boohs.  251 

in  the  same  verse  for  "  saith  the  Lord"  sub- 
stitute "  saith  the  Lord  God,"  so  as  to  read 
thus,  "  I  am  the  Alplia,  saith  the  Lord  God ;" 

V.  9.  omit    "also"    in  v.  9;    omit    "in  the;"    for 

"Jesus  Christ"  read  simply  "Jesus;"  omit 
"  for "  and  "  Christ,"  so  as  to  read  the  verse 
thus,  "  I  John,  your  brother,  and  companion 
in  the  tribulation  and  kingdom  and  patient 
endurance  in  Jesus,  was  in  the  isle  that  is 
called  Patmos,  on  account  of  the  word  of  God, 
and  the  testimony  of  Jesus  ; "  omit  the  words, 
"  I  am  Alpha  and  Omega,  the  first  and  the 

V.  11.  last"  in  v.  11;  omit  also  the  words  "which 
are  in  Asia,"  and  read  thus,  "saying,  What 
thou  seest  write  in  a  book,  and  send  to  the 
seven  churches ;  to  Ephesus,"  etc.;  omit  "unto 

V.  17.  me"  in  v.  17,  and  read  simply  "he  laid  his 
right  hand  upon  me,  saying,  Tear  not ; "  omit 

V.  18.  the  word  "Amen"  in  v.  18,  and  read  simply 
"  evermore,  and  have  ;  "  instead  of  the  words 
"  keys  of  hell  and  of  death "  in  the  same 
verse,  read  "  the  keys  of  death  and  of  Hades ; " 

V.  19.  insert  "  therefore  "  in  v.  19,  and  read  "  write 
therefore ; "    omit   the   words    "  which    thou 

V.  20.  sawest  "  in  v.  20,  and  read  "the  seven  candle- 
sticks are,"  etc. 

Chap.  ii.      Instead  of  the  words  "the  church  of  Ephesus" 

V.  1.  in  V.  1,  read  "  the  church  in  Ephesus ;"  instead 

of  "And  hast  borne,  and  hast  patience,  and 

V.  3,  for  my  name's  sake  hast  laboured  "  in  v.  3, 


252     Effect  prodMced  hy  Textual  Criticism  upon  the 

read  "  And  Thou  hast  patience,  and  didst  bear 
for  my  name's  sake  ; "  omit  the  word  "  quickly  " 

V.  5.  in  V.  5,  and  read  simply,  "  I  will  come  unto 

V.  7.  thee  ;  "  omit  the  words  "  the  midst  of  "  in  v.  7, 

and  read  simply,  "  which  is  in  the  paradise  of 

V.  10,  God;"  instead  of  "Tear  none  of"  in  v.  10, 
read,   "  Fear   not ; "    omit  the  words  "  which 

V.  15.  thing  I  hate  "  in  v.  15,  and  read  "  the  Mcolai- 
tanes,    in    like    manner ; "    insert   the   word 

V.  16.        "  therefore  "  in  v.  16,  and  read  "  Eepent  there- 

V.  17.  fore; "  omit  the  words  "to  eat"  in  v.  17,  and 
read  simply  "  will  I  give  of  the  hidden  manna;" 
instead  of  "  I  have  a  few  things  against  thee  " 

V.  20.  in  V.  20,  read  "  I  have  against  thee ; "  instead 
of  "  to  teach  and  seduce  "  in  the  same  verse, 
read  "  ar^d  she  teacheth  and  seduceth ; "  instead 

V.  21.  of  "  and  she  repented  not  "  in  v.  21,  read  "and 
she  will  not  repent,"  reading  the  whole  verse 
thus — "  And  I  gave  her  time  that  she  might 
repent ;  and  she  will  not  repent  of  her  forni- 

V.  24.  cation;"  omit  "  and  "  in  v.  24,  and  read  simply 
"But  unto  you  I  say,  unto  the  rest;"  omit 
"  and  "  in  the  same  verse  before  "  which." 

Chap.  iii.      Instead  of  "  are  ready  to  die  "  in  v.  2,  read 

V.  2.  "  were  ready  to  die ;"  in  the  same  verse,  for 

"  before  God,"  read  "  before  my  God ; "  insert 

V.  4.  "  But "  in  V.  4,  and  read  "  But  thou  hast ; "  in 

the  same  Averse,  omit  "  even,"  and  read  simply 
"  in  Sardis ; "  for  "  He  that  overcometh,  the 

V.  5.  same"  in  v.  5,   read   "He   that  overcometh 


Text  of  the  New  Testament  in  its  successive  Boohs.  253 

V.  7.  thus ;  "  for  "  no  man  shutteth  "  in  v.  7,  read 

"  no  man  shall  sliut ;  "  omit  "  Beliold  "  in  v. 
V.  11.  11,  and  read  simply,  "I  come  quickly;"  in- 
stead of  "the  church  of  the  Laodiceans"  in 
V.  14.  V.  14,  read  "  the  church  in  Laodicea." 
Chap.  iv.  Omit  "immediately"  in  v.  2,  and  read  simply 
V.  2.  "I  was  in  the  spirit;"  omit  "they  had"  in 

V.  4.  V.  4,  and  read  simply,  "  and  on  their  heads 

crowns  of  gold."    Some  remarkable  varieties  of 

V.  8.  reading  occur  in  v.  8 ;  ^  reads  as  follows  : — 

"  Holy,  holy,  holy,  holy,  holy,  holy,  holy,  holy, 
Lord  God  Almighty  ;  "  in  B  the  word  "  holy  " 
is  repeated  nine  times ;  in  other  manuscripts 
it  is  found  twice,  six  times;  and  in  A,  with 
most  others,  it  occurs  three  times,  which  is 
probably  correct ;  instead  of  the  words  "  they 

v.  11.  are  and  w^ere  created"  in  v.  11,  read  ''they 
were,  and  were  created." 

Chap.  V.       Instead  of  the  words  "  to  read  the  book  "  in 

V.  4.  V.  4,  read  "  to  open  the  book ;  "  for  ''  took  the 

V.  7.  book  out  of"  in  v.  7,  read  simply  "took  it  out 

of ; "   instead  of  "  having  every  one  of  them 

V.  8.  harps  "  in  v.  8,  read  "  each  having  a  harp ;  " 

instead  of  the  words  "  made  us  unto  our  God 
kings  and  priests ;  and  we  shall  reign  on  the 

V.  10.  earth  "  in  v.  10,  read  "  made  them  unto  our 
God  a  kingdom  and  priests,  and  they  [shall] 
reign  on  the  earth ;  "  for  "  And  the  four  and 
twenty  elders  fell  down  and  worshipped  Him 

V.  14.        that  liveth  for  ever  and  ever"  in  v.  14,  read 


254     Effect  produced  hy  Textual  Criticism  upon  the 

simply,  "  And  tlie  elders  fell  down  and  wor- 
shipped." 
Chap.  vi.     Insert  "  seven "  in  v.  1,  and  read  "  opened 
V.  1.  one  of  the  seven  seals ; "  omit  probably  "  and 

see "    in   the   same  -  verse,   and   read   simply 
*'  Come  ; "  in  like  manner,  omit  '*  and  see  "  in 
-y.  3.  V.  3,  and  read  as  before  "  Come  ; "  so  a^^ain,  in 

V.  5.  V.  5,  omit  "  and  see,"  and  read  "  Come  ;  "  and 

V.  7.  once  jnore,  onnt  the  same  words  in  v.  7,  and 

read  simply  "  Come  ;  "  instead  of  "  white 
V.  11.  robes  "  in  v.  11,  read  "  a  white  robe; "  insert 
V.  12.  "  whole  "  in  v.  12,  and  read  "  the  whole  moon." 
Chap.  vii.  For  "  after  these  things  "  in  v.  1,  read  "  after 
V.  1.  this ;  "  omit  the  words   "  were  sealed  "    after 

V.  5.  "  Keuben  "  in  v.  5,  and  read  simply  "  Of  the 

tribe  of  Eeuben,  twelve  thousand ; "  and  so 
throughout  the  passage;  for  "And  cried"  in 
V.  10.        V.  10,  read  "And  they  cry;  "  instead  of  "  living 
V.  17.         fountains  of  waters  "  in  v.  17,  read  "fountains 

of  the  waters  of  life." 

Chap.  Yiii.     Instead    of    the    words,   "The   first   angel 

V.  7.  sounded "    in    v.     7,    read    "  And    the    first 

sounded ; "    insert  the  words  "  and  the  third 

part  of  the  earth  was  burnt  up  "  in  the  same 

verse  before  "  and  the  third  part  of  trees ;  "  for 

V.  13.        "heard  an  angel"  in  v.  13,  read  "heard  an 

eagle." 
Chap.  ix.     Omit   the  word  "  only "  in  v.   4,  and  read 
'0.  4.  simply    "  but   those   men ; "    for    "  tails   like 

unto  scorpions,  and  there  w^ere  stings  in  their 


Text  of  the  New  Testament  in  its  successive  Boohs.  255 

V.  10.        tails  "  in  v.  10,  read  "  tails  like  unto  scorpions, 
and  [also]  stings  ;  and  in  tlieir  tails  was  their 

V.  11.         power;"    omit    *' And "   in   v.    11,    and   read 
"  They  have  ;  "  omit  "  and  "  after  "  thousand  " 

V.  16.         in  V.  16,  and  read  simply  "  I  heard ;  "  insert 

V.  18.        ''plagues"  in  v.  18,  and  read  "  By  these  three 
plagues  ; "  for  "  their  power  is  in  their  mouth  " 

V.  19.        in  V.  19,  read  "  the  power  of  the  horses  is  in 
their  mouth  ;  "  for  "  nor  of  their  fornication  " 

V.  21.        in  V.  21,  read  probably  "nor  of  their  wicked- 
ness." 

Chap.  X.       For   "  he  had  in  his  hand  "  in  v.   2,  read 

V.  2.  "  having  in  his  hand ;"  omit  "  their  voices  "  in 

V.  4  v.  4,  and  read  "  when  the  seven  thunders  spoke; " 

omit  also  "  unto  me  "  in  the  same  verse,  and 
read  simply  "saying;"  instead  of  "the  mystery 

V.  7.  of  God  should  be  finished  "  in  v.  7,  read  "the 

mystery  of  God  was  finished  ; "  instead  of  the 

V.  11.        words  "And  he  said  unto  me  "  in  v.  11,  read 

"  And  they  say  unto  me." 
Chap.  xi.      Omit  the  words  "  and  the  angel  stood  "  in 

V.  1.  v.  1,  and  read  simply  "  saying  "  after  "rod;  " 

V.  4.  instead  of   "  before  the   God  "   in  v.  4,  read 

"before  the  Lord;"  for  "shall  see  their  dead 
bodies  "  in  v.  9,  read  "  look  upon  their  dead 
body;"  for  "  and  shall  not  suffer  "  in  the  same 
verse,  read  "  and  suffer  not;  "  instead  of  "they 
that  dwell  upon  the  earth  shall  rejoice  over 
V.  10.  them,  and  make  merry"  in  v.  10,  read  "they 
that  dwell  upon  the  earth  rejoice  over  them, 


256    Effect  produced  hy  Textual  Criticism  upon  the 

and  make  merry ; "  for  tlie  kingdoms  of  this 
V.  15.  world  "  in  v.  15,  read  "  The  kingdom  of  this 
world ;"  omit  the  words  "  and  art  to  come  "  in 
V.  17.  V.  17,  and  read  simply  *'  which  art,  and  wast." 
Chap.  xii.  Instead  of  "  woe  to  the  inhabiters  of  the 
V.  12.  earth  and  of  the  sea  "  in  v.  12,  read  simply 
"woe  to  the" earth  and  the  sea;"  omit  "Christ" 
V.  17.        in  V.  17,  and  read  simply  "  the  testimony  of 

Jesus." 

Chap.  xiii.     Instead  of  the  words  "  And  I  stood  upon 

V.  7.  the  sand  of  the  sea,  and  saw  "  in  v.  7,  read 

"  And  he  stood  upon  the  sand  of  the  sea ;  and 

I   saw;"   for   "having   seven  heads  and  ten 

horns  "  in  the  same  verse,  read  "  having  ten 

horns  and  seven  heads ; "  instead  of  "  which  gave 

V.  4.  power  unto  the  beast  "  in  v.  4,  read  "  because 

he  gave  the  power  to  the  beast;"  for  "in  blas- 

V.  6.  phemy"  in  v.  6,  read  "in  blasphemies;"  omit 

"and"  in  the  same  verse,  and  read  simply  "his 

tabernacle,  those  that;"  insert  "  and  peoples  " 

v.l.  in   V.    7,   and   read   "  over  all  kindreds,  and 

V.  16.        peoples;"  instead  of  "their  foreheads"  in  v.  16, 

read  "  their  forehead." 
Chap.  xiv.     Instead  of  "  And  I  looked,  and  lo,  a  Lamb" 
V.  1.  in  V.  1,  read  "  And  I  looked,  and  lo,  the  Lamb;" 

for  "  having  his  Father's  name  written  in 
their  foreheads,"  in  the  same  verse,  read 
"  having  his  name  and  the  name  of  his  Father 
written  in  their  foreheads  ;  "  for  "I  heard  the 
voice  of  harpers  harping  with  their  harps"  in 


Text  of  the  New  Testament  in  its  successive  Books.  257 

V.  2.  V.  2,  read  "  the  voice  whicli  I  heard  was  as 

that  of  harpers  harping  with  their  harps ; " 
for  "  And  in  their  mouth  was  found  no  guile ; 
for  they  are  without  fault  before  the  throne 

V.  5.  of  God"  in  v.   5,  read  simply  "And  in  their 

mouth  was  found  no  falsehood ;  for  they  are 

V.  8.  blameless;"   insert   "a  second"  in  v.  8,  and 

read  "And  there  followed   another,  a  second 

V.  9.  angel;"   in  like  manner  read  in  v.   9  "And 

there  followed  them  another,  a  third  angel ; " 
instead  of  "  Here  is  the  patience  of  the  saints  ; 

V.  12.  here  are  they  that  keep"  in  v.  12,  read  "  Here 
is  the  patience  of  the  saints  that  keep  ; "  omit 

V.  13.  ''unto  me"  in  v.  13,  and  read  simply  "say- 
ing, Write  ;  "  instead  of  "  and  their  works " 
in  the  same  verse,  read  "  for  their  works ; " 

V.  15.  omit  the  words  "  for  thee  "  in  v.  15,  and  read 
simply  "  the  time  is  come  to  reap." 

Chap.  XV.     Omit  the  words  "  and  over  his  mark"  in  v. 

V.  2.  2,  and  read  simply  "  and  over  his  image,  and 

over  the  number,"  etc.;  instead  of  *'thou  King 

V.  3.  of  saints"  in  v.  3,  read  'Hhou  King  of  the  na- 

V.  5.  tions;"  omit  "behold"  in  v.  5,  and  read  simply 

"  I  looked,  and  the  temple." 

Chap.  XA/i.     Insert  "seven"  in  v.  1  and  read  "pour  out 

V.  1.  the  seven  vials."     For  "upon  the  earth"  in  v. 

V.  2.  2  read  "  unto  the  earth."     Omit  *'  angel "  in  v. 

V.  3.  3,  and  read   simply  "And   the    second;"   so 

vv.  3,  4,    again  in  vv.  3,  4,  etc.  throughout ;  omit  the 

V.  5.  words  "0  Lord"  in  v.  5,   and  read   simply 


'258    Effect  produced  hy  Textual  Criticism  upon  the 

"  Thou  art  rigliteous."  In  the  latter  part  of 
this  verse,  the  common  text  is  a  mere  fabrica- 
tion, and  instead  of  "  which  art,  and  wast,  and 
shalt  be,  because,"  etc.  we  should  read  "  which 
art  and  wast  the  Holy  One,  because,"  etc. ; 
V.  6.  omit  "  for  "  in  v.  6,  and  read  simply  "  they 

are  worthy."     Instead  of  the  words  "  And  I 
V.  7.  heard  another  out  of  the  altar  say"  in  v.  7,  read 

''And  I  heard  the  altar  saying;"  omit  the 
V.  14.  words  "  the  earth  and  of "  in  v.  14,  and  read 
simply  "  kings  of  the  whole  world."  For 
V.  17.  "  into  the  air"  in  v.  17  read  **  upon  the  air." 
Chap.  xvii.  Omit  "  unto  me"  in  v.  1,  and  read  simply 
V.  2.  "saying;",  for  the  word   "  filthiness"  in  v.  2, 

read  "impurities;"  the  reading  to  be  adopted 
v.  8.  in  V.  8  was  formerly  noticed.^     Omit  "  And " 

'0.  9.  in  V.  9,  and  read  simply  "  Here  is  the  mind." 

V.  10.         Omit  "  and"   after  fallen  in  v.  10,  and  read 
simply  "  five  are  fallen,  one  is."     Instead  of 
v.  13.        the  words  "and  shall  give"  in  v.  13,  read  "  and 
oive."     Instead  of  "  And  the  ten  horns  which 
v.l^.        thou  sawest  upon  the  beast"  in  v.  16,  read  "and 
the  ten  horns  which  thou  sawest  and  the  beast." 
Chap,  xviii.      Omit    "  and"    in  v.  1,  and  read  simply 
V.  1.  "after  these  things;"  omit  "mightily"  in  v.  2, 

V.  2.  and  read  "  he  cried  with  a  strong  voice."     In- 

stead of  "her  sins  have  reached  unto  heaven" 
V.  h.  in  V.  5,  read  "her  sins  have  cleaved  together 

V.  6.  even  unto  heaven."     Omit  "you"  in  v.  6,  and 

1  Comp.  p.  172. 


Text  of  the  New  Testament  in  its  successive  Boohs.  259 

read  simply,  "  Eepay  lier  even  as  she  repaid." 
Instead   of  the   words    "who  judgeth    her" 

V.  8.  in  V.  8,  read  "  who  hath  judged  her."     Insert 

V.  13.  the  word  "spice"  in  v.  13,  and  read  "and 
cinnamon,  and  spice,  and  odours."     Instead  of 

V.  14.  the  second  "  are  departed  from  thee  '^  in  v.  14, 
read  "  are  perished  from  thee."  In  the  same 
verse,  for  "thou  shalt  find  them  no  more,"  read 
"  men  shall  find  them  no  more."     Instead  of 

v.  17.  "  all  the  company  in  ships  "  in  v.  17,  read 
"  every  one  that  sails  to  any  place."  Instead 
of    "thou  heaven,   and  ye  holy  apostles  and 

V.  20.  prophets  "  in  v.  20,  read  "  thou  heaven,  and 
ye  saints,  and  apostles,  and  prophets."  Omit 
the   words  "of  whatsoever   craft   he   be"  in 

V.  22.  V.  22,  and  read  simply  "  no  craftsman  shall 
be  found." 

Cha/p.  xix.     Omit  "and"  in  v.  1,  and  read  "after  these 

V.  1.  things."     In  the  same  verse  insert  the  words 

"  as  it  were,"  and  read  "  I  heard  as  it  were  a 
great  voice."  In  the  same  verse  omit  the 
word  "  honour,"  and  read  the  "  salvation,  and 
the  glory,  and  the  power  are  our  God's."     In- 

V.  15.  stead  of  "the  fierceness  and  wrath"  in  v.  15, 
read  "  the  fierceness  of  the  wrath."  Instead 
of  "  gather  yourselves  together  unto  the  supper 

V.  17.  of  God"  in  v.  17,  read  "gather  yourselves 
together  with  the  great  supper  of  God." 

Cliap.  XX.     Omit   "  and "    before  "  after  "    in  v.  3,  and 

V.  3.  read  simply  "  after  that."     Instead  of  "  and  I 


260    Effect  produced  hy  Textual  Criticism  upon  the 

saw  the  dead,  small  and  great,  stand  before 
V.  12.        God"   in  v.  12,  read   "and  1  saw  the  dead, 

great  and  small,  standing  before  the  throne  ;" 
V.  14.        insert  the  words  "the  lake  of  fire"  in  v.   14, 

and   read   the   verse   thus — "  And   death  and 

Hades  were  cast  into  the  lake  of  fire.     This 

is  the  second  death,  the  lake  of  fire." 
Chap.  xxi.     Omit  the  word  "  John "  in  v.  2,  and  read 
V.  2.  simply    "  and   I  saw  the  holy  city  :"    for    "  a 

V.  3.  great  voice  out  of  heaven  "    in  v.  3,  read   "  a 

great  voice  out  of   the  throne ; "    instead  of 
V.  5.  "  true  and  faithful "  in  v.  5,  read  "  faithful  and 

V.  7.  true ;"  for  "  shall  inherit  all  things  "  in  v.   7, 

read   "  shall  inherit  these  things  ;  "  omit  the 
V.  9.  words    "  unto  me  "  in  v.  9,  and  read  simply 

"  and  there  came  one   of  the  seven  angels ;" 
'0.  11.        omit  "and"  before  "her"  in  v.  11,  and  read 

simply  "  having  the  glory  of  God :  her  light ;" 
V.  13.         insert  "  and  "  three  times  in  v.  13,  and  read 

"  On  the  east  three  gates,  and  on  the  north 

three  gates,  and  on  the  south  three  gates,  and 

on  the  west  three  gates ; "  insert  the   word 
V,  14.        "  twelve  "  in  v.    14,  and  read   "  the   twelve 

names   of  the  twelve   apostles ; "   instead  of 
V.  15.        "  had  a  golden  reed  to  measure  "  in  v.  15,  read 

"  had  for  a  measure  a  golden  reed  to  measure  ;  " 
V.  23.        instead  of  "  shine  in  it  "  in  v.  23,  read  "  shine 

on  it ;  "  omit  the  words  "  of  them  which  are 
V.  24.        saved  "   in  v.  24,  and  read  simply  "  And  the 

nations  shall  walk  by  the  light  of  it ;  "  in  the 


Text  of  the  New  Testament  in  its  successive  Boohs.  261 

same  verse  omit  the  words  '^  and  honour,"  and 
read  simply  "  bring  their  glory  into  it." 

Cha][).  xxii.     Omit  the  word  "  pure  "  in  v.  1,  and  read 

V.  1.  simply  '*  And  he  shewed  me  a  river ;  "  instead 

of    "And    there   shall   be   no   night    there," 

V.  5.  in  V.  5,  read  "  And  there  shall  be  no  more 

night."     Instead  of  "  and  the  Lord  God  of  the 

V.  6.  holy  prophets  "  in  v.  6,  read  "  the  Lord  God 

of  the  spirits  of  the  prophets."     Insert  "  and" 

V.  7.  in  V.  7,  and  read  "  and  behold."     Omit  "for  " 

'y.  9.  in  v.  9,  and  read  simply  "  I  am  thy  feUow-ser- 

vant."     A  very  important  correction  falls  to  be 

i;.  11.  made  in  v.  11,  where,  instead  of  "he  that  is 
righteous,  let  him  be  righteous  still,"  read  "  he 
that  is  righteous,  let  him  do  righteousness  still." 

V.  12.  Omit  ''  and"  in  v.  12,  and  read  simply  "Behold, 
I  come  quickly ;"  in  the  same  verse,  for  "  accord- 
ing as  his  work  shall  be,"  read  "  according  as 
his  work  is."     Instead  of  "  the  beginning  and 

V.  13.  the  end,  the  first  and  the  last  "  in  v.  13,  read 
"first  and  last,  the  beginning  and  the  end." 
Another  very  important  correction  requires  to 

V.  14.  be  made  in  v.  14,  where,  for  "  Blessed  are  they 
that  do  His  commandments,"  read  "  Blessed 
are  they  that  wash  their  robes."     Omit  "  for  " 

V.  lb.        in  V.  15,  and  read  simply  "without  are."     Omit 

V.  17.        "and"    before   "whosoever  will"    in  v.    17. 

V.  18.  Omit  "for  "  in  v.  18,  and  read  simply  "Itestify;" 
in  the  same  verse,  for  "  shall  add  unto  these 
things,"  read  "  shall  add  unto  them  ;"  for  "  God 


262  Effect  ^produced  hy  Textual  Criticism. 

shall  take  away  his  part  out  of  the  book  of  life, 
and  out  of  the  holy  city,  and  from  the  things 

V.  19,  which  are  written  in  this  book  "  in  v.  19,  read 
"  God  shall  take  away  his  part  from  the  tree 
0^  life  and  from  the  holy  city,  which  are 
written  in  this  book."     Omit  the  words  "  Even 

'y.  20  so  "  in  v.  20,  and  read  simply,  "  Amen  :  come, 
Lord  Jesus."  Instead  of  "the  grace  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  be  with  you  all.     Amen" 

V.  21.  in  V.  21,  read  "  the  grace  of  the  Lord  Jesus  be 
with  the  saints.     Amen." 


MUm  AND  PATERSON,  PRINTERS,  EDINBURGH. 


Date  Due 

fietttTK 

7 

<::4^,3,e^ 

P4f«imm 

¥' 

T"" 

^ 

PRINTED 

IN  U.  S.  A. 

^'i^im-m 


The^wo^ds^onle  New  Testament,  as 


Theological  Seminary-Speer  Library 


<••  >:«*«i!  ^ 


1   1012  00077  1255 


'^mmi---m 


W^mmM 


